Skip to main content

Full text of "Moralia, in fifteen volumes, with an English translation by Frank Cole Babbitt"

See other formats






Translated by 






PLUTARCH (Plutarchus), ca. ad 4^-1 20, 
was born at Chaeronea in Boeotia in cen- 
tral Greece, studied philosophy at Athens, 
and, after coming to Rome as a teacher in 
philosophy, was given consular rank by the 
emperor Trajan and a procurator ship in 
Greece by Hadrian. He was married and 
the father of one daughter and four sons. 
He appears as a man of kindly character 
and independent thought, studious and 

Plutarch wrote on many subjects. Most 
popular have always been the 46 Parallel 
Lives, biographies planned to be ethical ex- 
amples in pairs (in each pair, one Greek 
figure and one similar Roman) , though the 
last four lives are single. All are invaluable 
sources of our knowledge of the lives and 
characters of Greek and Roman statesmen, 
soldiers and orators. Plutarch's many other 
varied extant works, about 60 in number, 
are known as Moralia or Moral Essays. They 
are of high literary value, besides being of 
great use to people interested in philoso- 
phy, ethics and religion. 

The Loeb Classical Library edition of the 
Moralia is in sixteen volumes, volume XIII 
having two parts. Volume XVI is a compre- 
hensive Index. 








LCL 427 

Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2013 








Copyright © 1976 by the President and Fellows 
of Harvard College 
All rights reserved 

First published igy6 

LOEB CLASSICAL LIBRARY® is a registered trademark 
of the President and Fellows of Harvard College 

ISBN 978-0-674-99470-6 

Printed on acid-free paper and bound by 
Edwards Brothers, Ann Arbor, Michigan 










The following are the manuscripts used for the edi- 
tion of the six essays in this volume and the sigla 
that refer to them : 

A=Parisinus Graecus 1671 (Bibliotheque Nationale, 

Paris)— a.d. 1296. 
B = Parisinus Graecus 1675 (Bibliotheque Nationale, 

Paris) — 15th century. 
E = Parisinus Graecus 1672 (Bibliotheque Nationale, 

Paris) — written shortly after a.d. 1302. 
F= Parisinus Graecus 1957 (Bibliotheque Nationale, 

Paris) — written at the end of the 11th century. 
J =Ambrosianus 881 - C 195 inf. (Biblioteca Am- 

brosiana, Milan) — 13th century. 
X = Marcianus Graecus 250 (Biblioteca Nazionale di 

S. Marco, Venice) — the first part (containing the 

De Stoicorum Repugnantiis) written in the 11th 

century, the second part (containing the Pla- 

tonicae Quaestiones) written in the 14th century, 
d = Laurentianus 56, 2 (Biblioteca Laurenziana, 

Florence) — 15th century, 
e = Laurentianus 70, 5 (Biblioteca Laurenziana, 

Florence) — 14th century, 
f = Laurent. Ashburnham. 1441 (not 1444asinHubert- 

Drexler, Moralia vi/1, pp. xvi and xx) (Biblioteca 

Laurenziana, Florence) — 16th century. 



g=Vaticanus Palatinus 170 (Bibliotheca Apostolica 
Vaticana, Rome) — 15th century. 

m =Parisinus Graecus 1042 (Bibliotheque Nationale, 
Paris) — 16th century. 

n ^=Vaticanus Graecus 1676 (Bibliotheca Apostolica 
Vaticana, Rome) — 14th century (cf. Codices 
Vaticani Graeci : Codices 1485-1683 rec. C. Gian- 
nelli [1950], pp. 441-443). 

r= Leiden B.P.G. 59 (Bibliotheek der Rijksuniver- 
siteit, Leiden) — 16th century (see p. 150, n. b 
in the Introduction to the De An. Proc. in Ti- 

t = L'rbino-Vaticanus Graecus 100 (Bibliotheca Apo- 
stolica Vaticana, Rome)- — a.d. 1402. 

u = Urbino-Vaticanus Graecus 99 (Bibliotheca Apo- 
stolica Vaticana, Rome) — 15th century. 

v =Vindobonensis Philos. Graec. 46 (Nationalbiblio- 
thek, Vienna) — 15th century. 

z = Vindobonensis Suppl. Graec. 23 (Nationalbiblio- 
thek, Vienna) — 15th century. 

a =Ambrosianus 859 - C 126 inf. (Biblioteca Am- 
brosiana, Milan) — finished in a.d. 1295 (cf. 
A. Turyn, Dated Greek Manuscripts of the Thir- 
teenth and Fourteenth Centuries in the Libraries of 
Italy [University of Illinois Press, 1972] i, pp. 81- 

j3=Vaticanus Graecus 1013 (Bibliotheca Apostolica 
Vaticana, Rome) — 14th century. 

y =Vaticanus Graecus 139 (Bibliotheca Apostolica 
Vaticana, Rome) — written shortly after a.d. 

8 -Vaticanus Reginensis (Codices Graeci Reginae 
Suecorum) 80 (Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana, 
Rome) — 15th century. 



e = Codex Matritensis Griego 4690 (Biblioteca Natio- 
nal, Madrid) — 14th century. 

Bonon. -Codex Graecus Bononiensis Bibliothecae 
Universitatis 3635 (Biblioteca Universitaria, 
Bologna) — 14th century. 

C.C.C. 99 = Codex Oxoniensis Collegii Corporis 
Christi 99 (Corpus Christi College, Oxford) — 
15th century. 

Escor. 72 = Codex Griego 27-1-12 de El Escorial (Real 
Biblioteca de El Escorial) — 15th and 16th cen- 
turies (ff. 75 r -87 r , which contain the De An. Proc. 
in Timaeo, were written in the 16th century). 

Escor. T-ll-5 = Codex Griego T.11.5 de El Escorial 
(Real Biblioteca de El Escorial) — 16th century. 

Laurent. C. S. 180 =Laurentianus, Conventi Sop- 
pressi 180 (Biblioteca Laurenziana, Florence) — 
15th century. 

Tolet. 51, 5 =Toletanus 51, 5 (Libreria del Cabildo 
Toledano, Toledo) — 15th century. 

Voss. 16 = Codex Graecus Vossianus Misc. 16 (I) = 
Vossianus P 223 (Bibliotheek der Rijksuni- 
versiteit, Leiden) — 15th century. 

In such matters as accent, breathing, crasis, elision 
and spelling I have followed without regard to the 
manuscripts the usage explained in the Introduction 
to the De Facie (L.C.L. Mot alia xii, pp. 27-28). 

The readings of the Aldine edition I have taken 
from a copy that is now in the library of The Institute 
for Advanced Study (Princeton, New Jersey) and 
that has on the title-page the inscription in ink, 
— : Donati Jannoctii : — Ex Bibliotheca Jo. Huralti 
Borstallerii : Jannoctii dono ; and from the margins 
of this copy I have cited the corrections or con- 
jectures which in a note at the end of the volume 


(pp. 1010 f.) a written in the same ink as the inscrip- 
tion on the title-page are ascribed to Leonicus and 
Donatus Pol us. 

For the editions and other works to which there is 
frequent reference in the apparatus criticus and notes 
the following abbreviations or short titles are 
used : 

Amyot -Les ceuvres morales et philosophiques de 
Plutarque, translatees de Grec en Francis par 
Messire Jacques Amyot, . . . corrigees et aug- 
mentees en ceste presente edition en plusieurs 
passages suivant son exemplaire, Paris, Claude 
Morel, 1618. 6 

Andresen, Logos und No mos = Carl Andresen, Logos 
und Nomos : Die Polemik des Kelsos wider das 
Christentum, Berlin, 1935. 

Armstrong, Later Greek . . . Philosophy = The Cam- 
bridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval 
Philosophy, edited by A. H. Armstrong, Cam- 
bridge, 1967. 

Babut, Plutarque de la Vertu Ethique = Plutarque de la 
Vertu Ethique : Introduction, texte, traduction et 
commentaire par Daniel Babut, Paris, 1969 (Biblio- 
theque de la Faculte des Lettres de Lyon XV). 

a It is the same note as that quoted by R. Aulotte {Amyot 
et Plutarque [Geneve, 1965], p. 180) from the end (p. 877) 
of the Basiliensis in the Bibliotheque Nationale (J. 693), the 
title-page of which, he says, bears the inscription Donato 

b This definitive edition has been compared with the first 
edition, Les ceuvres morales et meslees de Plutarque . . ., 
Paris, Michel de Vascosin, 1572, and with (Euvres Morales 
et Melees de Plutarque traduites du Grec par Jacques Amyot 
avec des Notes et Observations de MM. Brotier et Vaul- 
villiers, Paris, Cussac, 1784-1787 =Tomes XIII-XXII of 
(Euvres de Plutarque . . ., 25 vols., 1783-1805. 



Babut, Plutarque et le Stoicisme = Daniel Babut, Plu- 
tarque et le Stoicisme, Paris, 1969 (Publications 
de I'Universite de Lyon). 

Basiliensis = Plutarchi Chaeronei Moralia Opuscula . . . , 
Basiliae ex Officina Frobeniana per H. Frobenium 
et N. Episcopium, 1542. 

Benseler, De Hiatu -G. E. Benseler, De Hiatu in 
Scriptoribus Graecis, Pars I : De Hiatu in Oratori- 
bus Atticis et Historicis Graecis Libri Duo, Friber- 
gae, 1841. 

Bernardakis -Plutarchi Chaeronensis Moralia recogno- 
vit Gregorius N. Bernardakis, Lipsiae, 1888- 
1896 (Bibliotheca Teubneriana). 

Bidez-Cumont, Les Mages Hellenises = Joseph Bidez 
et Franz Cumont, Les Mages Hellenises, 2 vol- 
umes, Paris, 1938. 

Bolkestein, Adversaria = Hendrik Bolkestein, Adver- 
saria Critica et Exegetica ad Plutarchi Quaes- 
tionum Convivalium Librum Primum et Secundum, 
Amstelodami, 1946. 

Bonhoffer, Epictet und die Stoa = Adolf Bonhoffer, 
Epictet und die Stoa : Untersuchungen zur stoischen 
Philosophic, Stuttgart, 1890. 

Bonhoffer, Die Ethik . . . = Adolf Bonhoffer, Die 
Ethik des Stoikers Epictet, Stuttgart, 1894. 

Brehier, Chry sippe =fimile Brehier, Chrysippe et Van- 
den stoicisme, Paris, 1951 (nouvelle edition revue). 

Brehier, Theorie des Incorporels =Emile Brehier, La 
Theorie des Incorporels dans Vancien Stoicisme, 
Paris, 1928 (deuxieme edition). This was origin- 
ally published in 1908 as a " These pour le doc- 
torat." It was reprinted in 1962. 

Burkert, Weisheit und Wissenschaft = Walter Burkert, 
Weisheit und Wissenschaft : Studien zu Pythagoras, 


Pkilolaos und Platon, Nurnberg, 1962 (Erlanger 
Beitrage zur Sprach- und Kunstwissenschaft X). 
There is an English edition, " translated with 
revisions," Lore and Science in Ancient Pytha- 
goreanism (Harvard University Press, 1972) ; 
but this appeared too late to permit the use of it 
instead of the German original. 

Cherniss, Aristotle's Criticism of Plato . . . = Harold 
Cherniss, Aristotle' s Criticism of Plato and the 
Academy, Vol. I, Baltimore, 1944. 

Cherniss, Crit. Presoc. Phil. = Harold Cherniss, Aris- 
totle's Criticism of Presocratic Philosophy, Balti- 
more, 1935. 

Cherniss, The Riddle = Harold Cherniss, The Riddle 
of the Early Academy, Berkeley/Los Angeles, 1 945. 

Cornford, Plato's Cosmology = Plato's Cosmology : The 
Timaeus of Plato translated with a running com- 
mentary by Francis Macdonald Cornford, 
London/New York, 1937. 

Diels-Kranz, Frag. Vorsok. 6 =Die Fragmente der 
Vorsokratiker, Griechisch und Deutsch von Her- 
mann Diels, 6. verbesserte Auflage hrsg. von 
Walther Kranz, 3 volumes, Berlin, 1951-1952 
(later " editions " are unaltered reprints of this). 

Doring, Megariker = Die Megariker, Kommentierte 
Sammlung der Testimonien . . . vorgelegt von 
Klaus Doring, Amsterdam, 1972 (Studien zur an- 
tiken Philosophic 2). 

Dubner = Plutarchi Chaeronensis Scripta Moralia. 
Graece et Latine ed. Fr. Dubner, Paris, 184-1. 

DyrofF, Die Ethik der alten Stoa = Adolf Dyroff, Die 
Ethik der alten Stoa, Berlin, 1897 (Berliner 
Studien fur classische Philologie u. Archaeologie, 
N.F. 2ter Band). 



Dyroff, Programm Wurzburg, 1896 = Adolf Dyroff, 
Ueber die Anlage der stoischen Biicherkataloge, Pro- 
gramm des K. Neuen Gymnasiums zu Wiirz- 
burg fiir das Studienjahr 1895/96, Wiirzburg, 

Elorduy, Sozialphilosophie =Eleuterio Elorduy, Die 
Sozialphilosophie der Stoa, Grafenhainichen, 1936 
( = Philologus, Supplementband XXVIII, 3). 

Emperius, Op. Philol. -Adolphi Emperii Opuscula 
Philologica et Historica Amicorum Studio Collecta 
edidit F. G. Schneidewin, Gottingen, 1847. 

Festa, Stoici Antichi -IFrammenti degli Stoici Antichi or- 
dinate, tradotti e annotati da Nicola Festa, Vol. 
I e Vol. II, Bari, 1932-1935. 

Giesen, De Plutarchi . . . Disputationibus = Carolus 
Giesen, De Plutarchi contra Stoicos Disputationi- 
bus, Monasterii Guestfalorum, 1889 (Diss. 

Goldschmidt, Le systeme stoicien = Victor Goldschmidt, 
he systeme stoicien et Videe de temps, Paris, 1953 
(Seconde edition revue et augmentee, Paris, 

Gould, The Philosophy of Chrysippus = Josiah B. 
Gould, The Philosophy of Chrysippus, Leiden, 
1970 (Philosophia Antiqua XVli). 

Grilli, II problema delta vita contemplativa = Alberto 
Grilli, // problema delta vita contemplativa net 
mondo Greco-Romano, Milan/Rome, 1953 (Uni- 
versita di Milano, Facolta di Lettere e Filosofia, 
Serie prima : Filologia e Letterature Classiche). 

Grumach, Physis und Agathon = Ernst Grumach, 
Physis und Agathon in der alten Stoa, Berlin, 1932 
(Problemata 6). 

H. C. = the present editor. 


Hahn, " De Plutarchi Moralium Codicibus " = 
Victor Hahn, " De Plutarchi Moralium Codici- 
bus Quaestiones Selectae," Academic Polonaise : 
Rozprawy Akademii Umiejetnosci, Wydzial Filo- 
logiczny, Serya ii, Tom xxvi (1906), pp. 43- 

Hartman, De Avondzon des Heidendoms =J. J. Hart- 
man, De Avondzon des Heidendoms : Het Leven 
en Werken van den Wijze van Chaeronea, 2 vol- 
umes, Leiden, 1910. 

Hartman, De Plutarcho = J. J. Hartman, De Plutarcho 
Scriptore et Philosopho, Lugduni-Batavorum, 

Heath, Aristarchus of Samos =Sir Thomas Heath, 
Aristarchus of Samos, The Ancient Copernicus, Ox- 
ford, 1913. 

Heath, History =Sir Thomas Heath, A History of 
Greek Mathematics, 2 volumes, Oxford, 1921. 

Heath, Manual =Sir Thomas L. Heath, A Manual of 
Greek Mathematics, Oxford, 1931. 

Helmer, De An. Proc. =Joseph Helmer, Zu Plutarchs 
" De animae procreatione in Timaeo ": Ein-Beitrag 
zum Verstandnis des Platon-Deuters Plutarch, 
Wurzburg, 1937 (Diss. Munchen). 

Hirzel, Untersuchungen = Rudolf Hirzel, Untersuch- 
ungen zu Cicero's philosophischen Schriften, 3 
volumes, Leipzig, 1877-1883. 

Holtorf, Plutarchi Chaeronensis studia . . . = Herbertus 
Holtorf, Plutarchi Chaeronensis studia in Platone 
explicando posita, Stralesundiae, 1913 (Diss. 

Hubert-Drexler, Moralia vi/l = Plutarchi Moralia Vol. 
VI Fasc. 1 recensuit et emendavit C. Hubertt, 
additamentum ad editionem correctiorem col- 



legit H. Drexler, Lipsiae, 1959 (Bibliotheca 

Hutten =Plutarcki Chaeronensis quae super sunt omnia 
. . . opera Joannis Georgi Hutten, Tubingae, 

Jagu, Zenon = Amand Jagu, Zenon de Cittium : Son 
Role dans V etablissement de la Morale stoicienne, 
Paris, 1946. 

Joly, Le theme . . . des genres de vie = Robert Joly, 
he Theme Philosophique des Genres de Vie dans 
VAntiquite Classique, Bruxelles, 1956 (Academie 
Royale de Belgique, Memoires de la Classe des 
Lettres, Tome XXIX, fasc. 3). 

Jones, Platonism of Plutarch = Roger Miller Jones, 
The Platonism of Plutarch ', Menasha (Wisconsin), 
191 6 (Diss. Chicago). References are to this edi- 
tion, in which the pagination differs somewhat 
from that of the edition of 1915. 

Kaltwasser =Plutarchs moralische Abhandlungen aus 
dem Griechischen iibersetzt von Joh. Fried. Sal. 
Kaltwasser, Frankfurt am Main, 1783-1800 = 
Plutarchs moralisch-philosophische Werke iiber- 
setzt von J. F. S. Kaltwasser, Vienna/Prague, 
1796 ff. 

Kilb, Ethische Grundbegriffe = Georg Kilb, Ethische 
Grundbegriffe der alien Stoa und ihre Uebertragung 
durch Cicero im dritten Buch definibus bonorum et 
malorum, Freiburg im Breisgau, 1939 (Diss. Frei- 
burg i.Br.). 

Kolfhaus, Plutarchi De Comm. Not. =Otto Kolfhaus, 
Plutarchi De Communibus Notitiis Librum Genui- 
num esse demonstrator, Marpurgi Cattorum, 1907 
(Diss. Marburg). 

Kramer, Arete =Hans Joachim Kramer, Arete bei 



Platon und Aristoteles : Zum We sen und zur Ge- 
schichte der platonischen Ontologie, Heidelberg, 
1959 (Abhandlungen der Heidelberger Aka- 
demie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-Hist. Kl., 

Kramer, Geistmetaphysik = Hans Joachim Kramer, 
Der Ursprang der Geistmetaphysik : Untersuch- 
ungen zur Geschichte des Platonismus zwischen 
Platon und Plotin, Amsterdam, 1961. 

Kramer, Platonismus = Hans Joachim Kramer, Plato- 
nismus und hellenistische Philosophies Berlin/New 
York, 1971. 

L.C.L. =The Loeb Classical Library. 

Latzarus, Idees Religieuses = Bernard Latzarus, Les 
Idees Religieuses de Plutarque, Paris, 1920. 

Madvig, Adversaria Critica = Jo. Nic. Madvigii Ad- 
vers aria Critica ad Scriptores Graecos et Latinos, 3 
volumes, Hauniae, 1871-1884. (Vol. I : Ad Scrip- 
tores Graecos). 

Mates, Stoic Logic ~ Benson Mates, Stoic Logic, Ber- 
keley/Los Angeles, 1953. 

Maurommates —IJXovrdpxov irzpi ri}s iv Tip^aicp i/ru^o- 
yovias, €k86vtos koX els rrjv apxalav avv4\€tav omo- 
KaTaoTrjoavros 'AvSpdov J. MavpofijJLdrov Kop- 
Kvpalov, Athens, 1848. 

Merlan, Platonism to Neoplatonism = Philip Merlan, 
From Platonism to Neoplatonism, second edition, 
revised, The Hague, i960. The later " edi- 
tions " are merely reprints of this ; the first 
edition was published in 1953. 

Moutsopoulos, La Musique . . . de Platon = Evanghelos 
Moutsopoulos, La Musique dans VCEuvre de 
Platon, Paris, 1959- 

B. Muller (1870) =Berthold Miiller, " Eine Blatter- 



vertauschung bei Plutarch," Hermes iv (1870), 
pp. 390-403. 

B. xMiiller (1871) =Berthold Muller, " Zu Plutarch 
TTepl ifwxoyovias" Hermes v (1871), p. 154. 

B. Muller (1873) =Berthold Muller, Plutarch tiber die 
Seelenschbpfung im Timaeus, Gymnasium zu St. 
Elisabet, Bericht uber das Schuljahr 1872-1873, 
Breslau, 1873. 

Nogarola = Platonicae Plutarchi Cheronei Quaestiones. 
Ludovicus Nogarola Comes Veronensis vertebat, 
Venetiis apud Vincentium Valgrisium, 1552. 

Pearson, Fragments = A. C. Pearson, The Fragments 
of Zeno and Cleanthes with Introduction and Ex- 
planatory Notes, London, 1891. 

Pohlenz, Moralia i ^Plutarchi Moralia, Vol. I re- 
censuerunt et emendaverunt W. R. Patont et 
I. Wegehauptt. Praefationem scr. M. Pohlenz, 
Lipsiae, 1925 (Bibliotheca Teubneriana). 

Pohlenz, Moralia vi/2 = Plutarchi Moralia, Vol. VI, 
Fasc. 2 recensuit et emendavit M. Pohlenz, 
Lipsiae, 1952 (Bibliotheca Teubneriana). 

Pohlenz-Westman, Moralia vi/2 = Plutarchi Moralia, 
Vol. VI, Fasc. 2 recensuit et emendavit M. Poh- 
lenz. Editio altera quam curavit addendisque in- 
struxit R. Westman, Lipsiae, 1959 (Bibliotheca 

Pohlenz, Grundfragen = Max Pohlenz, Grundfragen 
der stoischen Philosophic, Gottingen, 1940 (Ab- 
handlungen der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften 
zu Gottingen, Phil. -Hist. Kl.,Dritte Folge Nr. 26). 

Pohlenz, £/oa=Max Pohlenz, Die Stoa : Geschichte 
einer geistigen Bewegung, 2 volumes, Gottingen, 
1948- 1949 (ii =2. Band : Erlauterungen, 4. Auf- 
lage, Zitatkorrekturen, bibliographische Nach- 



trage und ein Stellenregister von H.-Th. Jo- 
hann, 1972). 

Pohlenz, Zenon und Chrysipp =M. Pohlenz, Zenon und 
Chrysipp, Gottingen, 1938 (Nachrichten von der 
Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen, 
Phil.-Hist. Kl., Fachgruppe I, Neue Folge : 
Band II, Nr. 9) =Max Pohlenz, Kleine Schriften 
i, pp. 1-38. 

Problems in Stoicism ^Problems in Stoicism edited by 
A. A. Long, London, 1971. 

R.-E. =Paulys Realencyclopadie der classischen Alter- 
tumswissenschaft . . ., Stuttgart, 1894-1972. 

Rasmus, Prog. 1872 =Eduardus Rasmus, De Plutarchi 
Libro qui inscribitur De Communibus Notitiis Com- 
mentatio, Programm des Friedrichs-Gymnasiums 
zu Frankfurt a.O. fiir das Schuljahr 1871-1872, 
Frankfurt a.O., 1872. 

Rasmus, Prog. 1880 =Eduardus Rasmus, In Plutarchi 
librum qui inscribitur De Stoicorum Repugnantiis 
Coniecturae, Jahres-Bericht iiber das vereinigte 
alt- und neustadtische Gymnasium zu Branden- 
burg von Ostern 1879 bis Ostern 1880, Branden- 
burg a.d.H., 1880. 

Reiske = Plutarchi Chaeronensis, Quae Super sunt , Om- 
nia, Graece et Latine . . . Io. Iacobus Reiske, 
Lipsiae, 1774-1782 (Vols. VI-X [1777-1778]: 
Opera Moralia et Philosophica). 

Rieth, Grundbegriffe = Otto Rieth, Grundbegriffe der 
stoischen Ethik : Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Un- 
tersuchung, Berlin, 1933 (Problemata 9). 

Robin, Pyrrhon =Leon Robin, Pyrrhon et le Scepticisme 
Grec, Paris, 1944. 

S.V.F. = Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta collegit Ioannes 
ab Arnim, 3 volumes, Lipsiae, 1903-1905. 



Sambursky, Physics of the Stoics =S. Sambursky, Phy- 
sics of the Stoics, London, 19^9- 

Schafer, Ein friihmittelstoisches System — Maximilian 
Schafer, Ein friihmittelstoisches System der Ethik 
bei Cicero, Munich, 1934. 

Schmekel, Philosophic der mittleren Stoa = A. Schmekel, 
Die Philosophic der mittleren Stoa in ihrem ge- 
schichtlichen Zusammenhange dargestellt, Berlin, 

Schroeter, Plutarchs Stellung zur Skepsis = Johannes 
Schroeter, Plutarchs Stellung zur Skepsis, Greifs- 
wald, 1911 (Diss. Konigsberg). 

Stephanus =Plutarchi Chaeronensis quae extant opera 
cum Latina interpretatione . . . excudebat Henr. 
Stephanus, Geneva, 1572. 

Taylor, Commentary on Plato s Timaeus =A. E. Tay- 
lor, A Commentary on Plato's Timaeus, Oxford, 

Thevenaz, UAme du Monde = Pierre Thevenaz, 
UAme du Monde, le Devenir et la Matiere chez 
Plutarque avec une traduction du traite '* De la 
GenesedeVAme dans le Timee" (l re partie), Paris, 

Treu, Lampriascatalog = Max Treu, Der sogenannte 
Lampriascatalog der Plutarchschriften, Walden- 
burg in Schlesien, 1873. 

Treu, Ueberlieferung i, ii, and iii =Max Treu, Zur Ge- 
schichte der Ueberlieferung von Plutarchs Moralia i 
(Programm des Stadtischen evangel. Gymna- 
siums zu Waldenburg in Schlesien 1877), ii 
(Programm des Stadtischen Gymnasiums zu 
Ohlau 1881), iii (Programm des Konigl. Fried- 
richs-Gymnasiums zu Breslau 1884). 

Turnebus, Plutarchi de procreatione —Plutarchi dialogus 



de procreatione in Timaeo Platonis Adriano Tur- 
nebo interprete, Parisiis, 1552. 

Usener, Epicurea = Epicurea edidit Hermannus Use- 
ner, Lipsiae, 1887. 

Valgiglio, De Fato =Ps.-Plutarco De Fato (irepl el- 
ixapn4vr)s) : Introduzione testo commento traduzione 
di Ernesto Valgiglio, Rome, 1964. 

van Straaten, Panetius = Modestus van Straaten, 
Panetius : sa vie, ses ecrits et sa doctrine avec une 
edition des fragments, Amsterdam, 1946. The 
third part of this book, the text of the fragments 
(pp. 325-393), is replaced by Panetii Rkodii Frag- 
menta collegit tertioque edidit Modestus van 
Straaten O.E.S.A., editio amplificata, Leiden, 
1962 (Philosophia Antiqua V). 

Verbeke, Kleanthes =G. Verbeke, Kleantkes van Assos, 
Brussel, 1949 (Verhandelingen van de K. Vlaamse 
Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en 
Schone Kunsten van Belgie, Kl. der Letteren, 
XI [1949], No. 9). 

Volkmann, Philosophie des Plutarch = Richard Volk- 
mann, Leben, Schriften und Philosophie des Plu- 
tarch von Chaeronea, Zweiter Teil : Philosophie 
des Plutarch von Chaeronea, Berlin, 1869. 

Wegehaupt, Plutarchstudien =Hans Wegehaupt, Plu- 
tarchstudien in italienischen Bibliotheken, Hohere 
Staatsschule in Cuxhaven, Wissenschaftliche 
Beilage zum Bericht iiber das Schuljahr 1905/ 
1906, Cuxhaven, 1906. 

Wegehaupt, " Corpus Planudeum " =Hans Wege- 
haupt, " Die Entstehung des Corpus Planudeum 
von Plutarchs Moralia," Sitzungsberichte der K. 
Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1909? 
2. Halbband, pp. 1030-1046. 



Weische, Cicero und die Neue Akademie = Alfons 
Weische, Cicero und die Neue Akademie : Unter- 
suchungen zur Entstehung und Geschichte des an- 
tiken Skeptizismus, Minister Westf., 1961 (Orbis 
Antiquus 18). 

Weissenberger, Die Sprache Plutarchs i and ii =B. 
Weissenberger, Die Sprache Plutarchs von Chae- 
ronea und die pseudoplutarchischen Schriften I. Teil 
(Programm des K. hum. Gymnasiums Straubing 
fiir das Schuljahr 1894/1895), II. Teil (Programm 
des K. hum. Gymnasiums Straubing fiir das 
Schuljahr 1895/96), Straubing, 1895 and 1896. 

Westman, Plutarch gegen Kolotes = Rolf Westman, 
Plutarch gegen Kolotes : Seine Schrift " Adversus 
Colotem " als philosophiegeschichtliche Quelle, Hel- 
singfors, 1955 (Acta Philosophica Fennica, Fasc. 
vii, 1955). 

Witt, Albinus =R. E. Witt, Albinus and the History of 
Middle Platonism, Cambridge, 1937 (Transactions 
of the Cambridge Philological Society, Vol. vii). 

Wyttenbach =Plutarchi Chaeronensis Moralia, id est 
Opera, exceptis Vitis, Reliqua . . . Daniel Wytten- 
bach, Oxonii, 1795-1830 (Wyttenbach, Animad- 
ver stones =Vols. vi and vii ; Index Graecitatis — 
Vol. viii). 

Xylander —Plutarchi Chaeronensis omnium, quae ex- 
stant, operum Tomus Secundus continens Moralia 
Gulielmo Xylandro interprete, Francofurti, 1599- 
At the end of this volume, separately paged, 
there are Xylander 's annotations followed by 
those of Stephanus and then variant readings 
ascribed to Turnebus, Vulcobius, Bongarsius, 
and Petavius as well as those of the Aldine and 
the Basiliensis. 


Zeller, Phil. Grieck. =Eduard Zeller, Die Philosophie 
der Griecken in ihrer gesckichtlicken Entwicklung, 3 
parts in 6 volumes, Leipzig, 1920-1923 (last re- 
vised editions) : I/l and 2, 6. Auflage hrsg. von 
Wilhelm Nestle ; II/l, 5. Auflage mit einem An- 
hang von Ernst Hoffmann ; II/2, 3. Auflage (4. 
Auflage =Obraldruck) ; 1 1 I/l, 4. Auflage hrsg. 
von Eduard Wellmann ; III/2, 4. Auflage. 


the Moralia as they appear since the edition of 
Stephanus (1572), and their division into volumes 
in this edition. 

1. De liberis educandis (Htpi -rralbcov dywyrjs) 
Quomodo adolescens poetas audire debeat 

(II cos Set rov viov ironjfidTwv dicoveiv) . 
De recta ratione audiendi (Ucpl rov aKoveiv) 
Quomodo adulator ab amico internoscatur 

(lieu? dv rts $(,aKpivei€ rov koXolko. rod </>l\ov) 
Quomodo quis suos in virtute sentiat profectus 

(Ha>S dv ns atodoiro iavrov irpOKOirrovros eV 

dpzrfj) ...... 

11. De capienda ex inimicis utilitate (Hats av ns 

vtt* ixBpwv wfaXotro) 
De amicorum multitudine (Ilcpt iro\v<l>(,\ias) 
De fortuna (IIcpl rvxqs) 
De virtute et vitio (Ilepi dperfjs kcu KaKias) 
Consolatio ad Apollonium (Hapa^vd-qriKos np6s 

* AttoXXwvlov) ..... 

De tuenda sanitate praecepta ('Yyieivd -nap 
ayydXfiara) ..... 

Coniugalia praecepta (TafiiKa napayyeXiiara) 

Septem sapientium convivium (Td^ tma ao<f>a> 
avfiiToaiov) ..... 

De superstitione (Ucpi Scic/iSai/zcna'as) 
III. Regum et imperatorum apophthegmata ('Awo 
<f>d€yij.ara j3acnA€toi> /cat orparrjycjv) 

Apophthegmata Laconica ( 9 Airo^deyfjLara Aa- 

KCOVlKa) ....... 

Instituta Laconica (Td 7raAcud Tctn> Aatfeoai/xon'cov 
iirirrfhevfiara) ..... 


37 b 














Lacaenarum apophthegmata (AaKcuvwv dno- 

MuJierum virtutes (Tvvoikwv dptrai) 
IV. Quaestiones Romanae (Ama Tco/xaiVca) . 
Quaestiones Graecae (Ama 'EAAiyviKa) . 
Parallela Graeca et Romana CLwaycoy-q loro 

ptwv 7rapaXXrj\a>v 'RAArjviKotv real 'Pcu/xat/ccov) 
De fortuna Romanorum (IIcpl rijs 'PcDftcucoi' 






De Alexandri magni fortuna aut virtute, li- 
bri ii (TLepi rijs ' AAcf riVopou rv\r)s rj dperrjs, 

Xoyoip') 326d 

Bellone an pace clariores fuerint Athenienses 
(IloT€pov *AQ-qvaloi Kara iroXtfiov r) Kara oo<j>lav 

€vbo(oT€poi) . . . . . 345c 

V. De Iside et Osiride (Uepl "lotoos Kai 'OatptSos). 351c 

De E apud Delphos (Tlcpi rov EI rov h> AeXfoTs) 384c 
De Pythiae oraculis (Plepi rov p.r) xp& v fyficrpa 

vvv Trjv TLvOlav) ..... 394d 

De defectu oraculorum (II«rpt rwv iKXtXomorwv 

Xpr)OTj)pia)v) ...... 409 e 

VI. An virtus doceri possit (Et SioaKrov r) apery) . 439a 

De virtute morali (Ltept rijs tjOiktjs dperijs) 440 d 

De cohibenda ira (Ilept dopyrjmas) . 452e 

De tranquillitate animi (Ilept €vOvp,ias) . . 464e 

De fraterno amore (Ilept ^lAaSeA^tas) . 478a 
De amore prolis (ITepi rijs ei? rd eVcyova <f>i\o- 

oropylas) .... 493a 

An vitiositas ad infelicitatem sufficiat (Et 

avrdpicqs r) Kaicla rrpos #ca#coocu/Ltoi'tav) . . 498a 

Animine an corporis affectiones sint peiores 
(Horepov ra rrjs ifaxrjs *»} rd rov oojfiaros iraQr) 

Xeipova) ....... 500 B 

De garrulitate (Ilept aSoAea^tW) . . 502 b 

De curiositate (Ilept 7ro\v7rpayfioovvqs) . 515b 

VII. De cupiditate divitiarum (Ilcpt ^tAo7rAovTtas) . 523c 

De vitioso pudore (Ilepi hvaamias) . . 528c 

De invidia et odio (He pi </>Q6vov /cat fiioovs) 536e 
De se ipsum citra invidiam laudando (Ilept rov 

iavrov eVatvety dv€7rM6va>s) . . . 539a 

De sera numinis vinaicta (Ilepi rwv vtto rod 

Beiov fipabetos rifia>povp.€vojv) , , 548a 




De fato (Ilept €Lfiapfi€ur)s) .... 568b 
DegenioSocratis(IUpi rov ^lojKpdrovs baifiovtov) 575a 

De exilio (Ilepi (frvyrjs) <399a 

Consolatio ad uxorem (IlapafivOrirtKos ttdos rijv 

yvvaiKa) . ...... 608 a 

VIII. Quaestionum convivalium libri vi (Zvnirooia- 

kC)v TrpopXrjfidTOJV fiiBXia s*') 612c 

I, 612c; II, 629b; III, 644e ; IV, 659e ; V, 

672d; VI, 686a . . 

IX. Quaestionum convivalium libri iii (Zvinrooia- 

ko>v TTpopXrmdrtov /fySAta y) . . . 69 7 C 

VII, 697c ; VIII, 716d ; IX, 736c 
Amatorius ('EpamKos) .... 748e 

X. Amatoriae narrationes ('Epcun/cat St^y^aets) . 77 1e 
Maxime cum principibus philosopho esse dis- 

serendum (Ilepi rov ori fidXiora rots ijyc/xoat 

§€? rov <f>i\6oo(f>ov BiaXeyeadai) . 776a 

Ad principem ineruditum (IIpos iJycfxoVa dnai- 

h€urov) 779c 

An seni respublica gerenda sit (Ei Trpcopvrepoj 

iro\lT€VT€Ov) ...... 783 a 

Praecepta gerendae reipublicae (IIoAmKd 

irapayycXpLara) . . . 79 8 A 

De unius in republica dominatione, populari 
statu, et paucorum imperio (Ilcpi povapxtas 
Kai brjiioKparias koll oXiyapxuis) • • 826a 

De vitando aere alieno (Ilept rov fiy heiv havel- 

UoBm) 827d 

Vitae decern oratorum (IIcpi ru>v ScVa p-qro- 

pwv) ....... 832b 

Comparationis Aristophanis et Menandri com- 
pendium (LvyKpio€tos *Apt,OTO<l>dvovs Kal Mev~ 
dvhpov cViTojnj) . . . . 853a 

XI. De Herodoti malignitate (IIcpi rfjs 'HpoSo-rou 

KdKoydeias) ...... 854 e 

*De placitis philosophorum, libri v (ITcpi rcov 

dp€GKOvrtov rots' ff>iXoo6(f>oi.s , ptPXla «') . . 874d 

Quaestiones naturales (AtVtat ^vat/cai) . . 911c 

XII. De facie quae in orbe lunae apparet (TIcpi rov 

€fj.(f)aLPOfievov Trpoownov ra> kvkXw tt}s oeXrj- 

vrfg) . '. . . 920a 

* This work, by Actius, not Plutarch, is omitted in the current edition. 



De primo fr'igido (Hcpl rod npuirws tpvxpov) . 945e 
Aquane an ignis sit utilior (Ucpi rod nortpov 

vSojp rj irvp xpyvwwTcpov) .... 955 D 
Terrestriane an aquatilia animalia sint callidi- 

ora (Ilorepa rcov Cujqjv <f>povipia)r€pa rd xepcraia 

rj rd cvuSpa) ...... 959a 

Bruta animalia ratione uti, sive Gryllus (Ilepl 

rod ra dXoya X6y<p xPV°^ aL ) • 98 5 d 

De esu carnium orationes ii (Hcpl vapKo<j>aylas 

Xoyoi fi) 993a 

XIII, Part I. Platonicae quaestiones (UXarwviKa £77- 

rrjfiara). ...... 999c 

De animae procreatione in Timaeo (Ilepl ri\s iv 

Tifiata) i/jvxoyovlas) . • 1012a 

Compendium libri de animae procreatione in 

Timaeo ('Emro/i^ rod nepl rrjs iv rco Ti/*cu'a> 

tpvxoyovlas) ...... 1030d 

XIII, Part II. De Stoicorum repugnantiis (Ileal 

^LrioiKcov ivavrLtofjidrcov) .... 1033a 
Compendium argumenti Stoicos absurdiora 

poetis dicere (Zvvoipis rod on rrapaho^orepa ol 

Etohkoi rdv Troirjriov Xeyovoi) . 1057c 

De communibus notitiis adversus Stoicos (Ilepl 

rwv koivwv ivvoitov npos rovs ^tojikovs) 1058e 

XIV. Non posse suaviter vivi secundum Epicurum 

("On ovhe t,yjv eortv rjSeajs Kar 'HiiriKOVpov) 1086c 

Adversus Colotem (II/>6s KojXcortjv v-nep rdv 

aAAcov ^>iXoo6<f>ojv) . . . . 1107d 

An recte dictum sit latenter esse vivendum (Ei 

KaXws etprjr at rd XdOe fiiwcras) • • l 128a 

De musica (llepi fiovoiKrjs) . . . .1131a 

XV. Fragments 
XVI. General Index 





Of Plutarch's works which, to judge by the titles 
listed in the Catalogue of Lamprias, were devoted 
particularly to the interpretation of Plato a only two 
are extant, the Ilepi rfj$ iv Tifxatco xf>vxoyovias (65) 
and the TlXarujviKa ^rijfiara (136). 

The term ^rrjfjLara had come to be used in a quasi- 
technical sense for problems or questions raised con- 
cerning the meaning first of expressions or verses in 
the text of Homer and then of specific passages in 
other texts or of particular statements or opinions 
or incidents, problems which with the solutions sug- 
gested might be made available to interested readers 
in the form that today would be called " collected 
notes " but sometimes in that of a \ 'symposium," b 

* Nos. 65-68, 70, 136, and 221 ; cf. also on Academic 
doctrine Nos. 64, 71 ( = 131 ?), 134, and especially No. 63. 

b For the history of the term and genre, ^-rrj/Aa, cf. 
A. Gudeman, R.-E. xiii/2 (1927), cols. 2511, 46-2529, 34 
(cols. 2525, 18-2527, 13 on Plutarch); H. Dorrie, Por- 
phyrias' " Symmikta Zetemata " (Munchen, 1959), pp. 1-6 ; 
K.-H. Tomberg, Die Kaine Historia des Ptolemaios Chennos 
(Diss. Bonn, 1967), pp. 54-62 ; R. Pfeiffer, History of 
Classical Scholarship (Oxford, 1968), pp. 69-71 and p. 263. 
Dorrie (op. cit., p. 2) says that in the technical vocabulary 
of philosophers the word was almost entirely avoided. 
Nevertheless, Plutarch cites works by Chrysippus entitled 
rjOtKOi Jij-n^KiTa and <f>voiKa ^r^fiaTa (De Stoic. Repug. 1046 
d and f and 1053 e-f, De Comm. Not. 1078 e and 1084 d) ; 



a literary frame not inappropriate, since in intel- 
lectual circles questions like these were proposed for 
discussion by the company after dinner. Plutarch 
himself in his Symposiacs h uses the term ^r^/xara of 
the questions or problems there propounded and 
discussed/ of which several without their literary 
embellishment could appropriately have been in- 
cluded in the Platonic Questions? just as all the latter 
could have been used as material for the Symposiacs, 
The Platonic Questions, as we have them, are ten 
separate ^r^/xara/ each concerned with the mean- 
ing of a passage or apparently related passages in 
the text of Plato t but unconnected with one another 

a work entitled ov^ynKra t^rt\ para is ascribed to Aristotle 
(V. Rose, Aristotelis Fragmenta [1886], p. 17, # 168; cf 
P. Moraux, Les Listes Anciennes des Ouvrages oV Aristote 
[Louvain, 1951], p. 117, n. 17 [on pp. 118-119] and pp. 280- 
281); and Porphyry ( Vita Plotini, chap. 15, 18-21) says 
that Eubulus wrote and sent from Athens ovyypa^ara imtp 
rtvijjv YlXarojviKWV fijTij/xaTcov. 

a Cf. Plutarch, Quaest. Conviv. 614 a-e and 686 b-d ; 
Aulus Gellius, vn, xiii, 1-12 and xvm, ii, 1-16 (especially 

6 For the literary form and " historicity M of Plutarch's 
Symposiacs cf. J. Martin, Symposion (Paderborn, 1931), pp. 
167-184 ; H. Bolkestein, Adversaria, pp. 1-46 ; K. Ziegler, 
R.-E. xxi, 1 (1951), cols. 886, 40-887, 55. 

c Cf Quaest. Conviv. 645 c, 660 d, 736 c, 737 d. 

d Notably Quaest. Conviv. vii, 1 and 2 ; viii, 2 ; and ix, 5. 

* That they are just ten may be only an accident ; but 
ten is also the number of questions that Plutarch expressly 
allocated to each book of the Symposiacs (cf. 612 e, 629 e, 
660 n) save one, the ninth, which he begins with a special 
apology for exceeding " the customary ten " (736 c). 

f Question VIII (1006 b — 1007 e), for example, begins 
with Timaeus 42 d 4-5, considers the possible relation to 
this of 40 b 8-c 2, and then returns to interpret 38 c 5-6 in 



by any transition and without any general introduc- 
tion or conclusion to give the collection unity or to 
suggest a reason for the sequence in which the ques- 
tions are arranged. Had the sequence been deter- 
mined by the subject-matter, II and IV would not 
have been separated from each other by III and VI 
would not have been placed between V and VII ; 
and, if by the source of the passages treated, III 
and IX, which deal with the Republic, would have 
come together, as would II, IV, V, VII, and VIII, 
all five of which deal with the Timaeus. The ten 
fyrrjfxara may not all have been written at one time 
and for a single work. It is at least as likely that at 
some time Plutarch put together ten separate notes 
on Platonic passages that he had written at different 
times and had found no suitable occasion to incor- 
porate into his other compositions. 6 If this is so, 
any indication of the relative chronology of one of 

relation to expressions in Republic 506 e — 509 d and 
Timaeus 37 b — 39 b. By the remark at the end of VIII, 3 
and the beginning of VIII, 4 Plutarch practically admits 
that VIII is in fact two ^nj/xara rather than one. 

a Cf. what is said by Elias (In Aristotelis Categorias, 
p. 114, 13-14) of the avfifjLiKTa t^Tr^iara ascribed to Aristotle 
and by Athenaeus (v, 186 e = Usener, Epicurea, p. 115, 9-11) 
of the Symposium of Epicurus. 

6 Cf. what he says of his De Tranquillitate Animi at the 
beginning of that essay (464 f) : ... dveAefa/i^y vepl 
€v6vfilas in rwv vTTOfjLvrjfidTcov a>v ifxavrw 7T€7toltjijl€vos lrvyx avov ' 
Paccius had asked him also for something on the passages 
of the Timaeus that require exegesis (464 e), and Plutarch 
probably had in those " note-books " of which he speaks 
such things as our ^qrqfiara or the material for them. One 
can well imagine that De Defectu Orac. 421 e — 431 a (chaps. 
22-37) is the elaboration of such a firn^a concerning Timaeus 
55 c 7-d 6 (cf. K. Ziegler, R.-E xxi/l [1951], col. 834, 47-53). 


the ten would not necessarily be pertinent to that 
of the others. 

That Plutarch had not himself been the first to 
pose questions about these particular Platonic 
passages is clear from the fact that he commonly dis- 
cusses or refers to answers other than those he 
finally gives as his own. a That he had himself dis- 
cussed at least one of them earlier is made certain by 
the remark that his answer is to noXXaKis v<f) y rjficov 
Xeyojxevov (1003 a). This is the answer to IV, which 
is a complement of that of II b and together with it 
gives in brief the interpretation that Plutarch was 
later to set out in detail in the De Animae Procreatione 
in Timaeo but himself says here had frequently been 
stated earlier than IV. c There is no other indication 
even of the relative chronology of any of these 
^rjTTjfjLara unless the mistake in V, " each of which 
consists of thirty of the primary scalene triangles " 
(1003 d) be thought to prove V earlier than De 
Defectu Orac, where in 428 a this is corrected ; but 
that would be a precarious inference, for the mistake 
in 1003 d is part of the interpretation of others to 
which Plutarch then gives his own as an alternative. 

The text of this work, No. 136 in the Catalogue of 

a In IV he gives only his own answer. The authors of the 
answers that he rejects are not identified more clearly than 
by some such expression as 8dfei 5' avrodcv (1001 d), <bs 
vttovoovglv evioi (1003 c), or ot . . . aTTohihovTes ayvoovow on . . . 
(1008 b-c). 

b See also the end of VIII (1007 c-n) ; cf. Quaest. Conviv. 
718 a and 719 a with H. Dorrie, PhUomathes . . . in Memory 
of Philip Merlan (The Hague, 1971), pp. 40-42. 

c So he begins De An, Proc. in Timaeo itself by saying 
that it is to bring together in a single work ra noWaias upyixiva 
kqx ycypa/t/xeva oiropaB-qv 4v irdpois lr€pa. . . . 



Lamprias and No. 38 in the Planudean order, is here 
printed on the basis ofXJgaAjSyEBen Voss. 16 
Bonon. C 3635 and Eseorial T-l 1-5, all of which I have 
collated from photostats. Of these only X J g E B € 
and n contain the whole of the work ; and in E itself, 
although the whole is written by a single hand, folio 
606 r has above the first column, which begins with 
the words rod voijrov jxovov iariv 6 vovs (1002 d), 
the superscription A irXarojvLKa t^rrjjxara <Lv ovx 
evpdOr) 7) dpxr}, through which in the same ink a line 
has been drawn. This same superscription occurs in 
a A jS Bonon. C 3635 Voss. 16 and Eseorial T-l 1-5, in 
all of which rod voryrod /c.t.A. (1002 d) are the first 
words of the work preserved, 6 and also in y, where 
the first words, however, are rl 877770x6 rrjv tpvxrjv 
(1002 e), the beginning of Question IV. c 

° This was accurately described by Treii (Ueberlieferung 
i, p. ix). Cf. Pohlenz, Moralia*, p. x, n. 3 (p. xi) ; Wege- 
haupt, Philologus, lxiv (1905), p. 396 ; Sandbach, Class. 
Quart., xxxv (1941), p. 110; Manton, Class. Quart., xliii 
(1949), p. 98. 

6 This is true also of 8 = Vat.Reg.80 (cf H. Stevenson, 
Bibliothecae Apostolicae Vaticanae . . . Codices Reginae 
Suecorum et Pit PP. II Graeci [Romae, 1888], p. 63 and 
Hahn, " De Plutarchi Moralium Codicibus," p. 57) and of 
Marcianus 259, in which latter, however, the text ends with 
aAAa €T€pov in 1008 a, where the first hand of n leaves off 
(cf. Treu, Lampriascatalog, p. 23 and Hubert-Drexler, 
Moralia vi/1, p. xiv). In Voss. 16 by an error in binding 
the text of the work has been divided ; it appears on folios 
2M0 V and 26 r -28 v . 

c This is also the case with Laur. 80, 5 and Laur. 80, 22 
(cf Wegehaupt, Plutarchstudien, pp. 27-28 and ■' Corpus 
Planudeum," p. 1034, n. 1), with Marcianus 248 (cf Treu, 
Lampriascatalog, p. 23 [where what is said of the beginning 
in Parisinus 1671 =A, however, is a mistake]), with Tolet. 
51, 5 (cf. Fletcher, Class. Quart., xxi [1927], pp. 166-167 



If y was copied from A, as has been supposed, the 
scribe of y must purposely have omitted the end of 
Question III (1002 d-e) which a and A preserve, to 
begin with Question IV (rl S^ttot^ and must also 
have disregarded either purposely or inadvertently 
the lacuna indicated in a and A between acofxariov 
and 6 <jl8r)pos in 1005 c. Otherwise y differs from a 
and A (uncorrected and corrected) in only six places, 
none of which is decisive. b Only once does y agree 
with a against A (1005 c [p,4v ti : \xivroi -A, Esc.]). 
Four times it agrees with A against a (1003 a [fj : 
ij -a], 1005 A [ovpavov : ? -a 1 ; Jjkov -a 2 , n ; ettcov -A, 
y and all other mss.], 1007 a [eKyovos : eyyovos -A, 
y], 1011 A \tov : rod -a]) and twice with A 2 against 
A 1 and a (1003 e [iraa&v : iraOcbv -a, A 1 ], 1005 c 
[rplifjei : rfj rplipet -A 2 , y]). It appears, then, that 
the scribe of y copied this work from A after A had 
been corrected. 

Since jS contains the end of Question III (1002 d-e), 
which is not in y, the source of /? for this work cannot 
have been y. Nor can it have been X, J, g, B, €, n, or 
E. c All these contain the beginning of the work, 

and p. 170, n. 6), and with Parisinus 2076 (ff. 132v-145 v ), 
which last was generously verified for me by M. Joseph 
Paramelle of the " Centre National de la Recherche 
Scientifique. , ' 

a Cf, B. Einarson and P. De Lacy, Class. Phil., xlvi (1951), 
p. 103, col. 1 and Valgiglio, De Fato, p. xlii. 

b 1003 B (cnrepiMaros : arcafiaros -y), 1006 D {Xanfiavovras'. 
XanfidvovTos -y» Esc. 1 ; Xafiftdvovra -a, A, E, B, t, n), 
1008 C (ncpl <Ltcl : nepl rd <Lra -y), 1008 D (XoywriKov : 
XoyiKov -a, A, ]8\ E, B, c), 1010 c (okas : aSXas -y, J). In 
the sixth (1006 a) y has the negative ov which is erased in a 
and cancelled in A ; but this cancellation, a dot under the 
ov, might easily have been overlooked. 

c B and g are presumably younger than j8 anyway, being 



which j8 does not have and says has not been found ; 
but besides that in one passage or another after the 
point at which the text in /? begins all of them lack 
words that were present in j8 even before correction, 
as do a, A, and y also. d In more than a dozen places 
where /? originally agreed with a, A, E it has been 
changed so that it agrees instead with the reading 
of Bonon., which is frequently shared with X and n 
and occasionally with J or e. In half a dozen of these 
places words not present in a, A, E, and y have been 
added by /3 2 either in the margin or superscript 
(1005 c-d, 1007 d [bis], 1010 c, 1010 d, and 1011 b). 
In 1010 c /3 2 has added in the margin ten words that 
occur in X, e, n, Bonon., Voss., and Escor., nine of 
which are omitted by J, g, a, A, y, E, and B. In 
1005 c-D, where J, g, and y have ato/zarojv. 6 oforjpos 
and where a lacuna of varying length between 
acofjLarwv and 6 crlSrjpog is indicated by a, A, E, B, 
and jS 1 , the five words lAvanav ovrtos vtto rod TJXd- 
tojvos have been added in the margin by /? 2 . These 
five words with the last four deleted are in Bonon. ; 
otherwise they are preserved — but with elAvaTrav in- 
stead of lAvarrav — only in X, €, and n. Moreover, £ 

of the 15th century, whereas j3 is of the 14th ; n, which has 
generally been dated to the 15th century, is of the 14th 
according to C. Giannelli {Codices Vaticani Graeci [1950], 
pp. 442-443). 

a This eliminates the possibility that /S might have been 
copied from E before the lost beginning had been discovered 
and added to that us. 

6 e.g. 1005 a (a/ua -omitted by n), 1006 a (ov -omitted by 
X, e, n [erased in a and cancelled in A]), 1006 c (lAXofievrjp . . . 
dv€iXovfjL€V7jv -omitted by J, g), 1009 b (Xoyov . . . vac. . . . 
koX -a, A, y, B), 1011 a ('OSvaac'a . . . vac. . . . ov -X, a, A, 
y, E, B, €)! 


has uncorrected readings that differ from those of a, 
A, and E and agree with those of Bonon., shared 
sometimes by X, J, n, or c as well (1006 d, 1007 c, 
1009 a, 1009 b, 1010 b, 1010 d, and 1011 a [bis]) ; 
and in the last of these places jS 1 agrees exactly with 
Bonon. alone (Xvycovra npos tt]v tlov TrpofiaTtov 
aw . . .). It is probable therefore that /} was not 
just corrected by reference to Bonon. but was copied 
from the archetype of the latter. 

Bonon. C 3635 not only has the end of Question 
III, which is not in y, and words that are not in /J 1 
but also preserves words that are missing from X, 
from J, and from a, A, y, E, e, and n. a Though very 
often in agreement with a and A against J and some- 
times against X or both X and J, it agrees at times 
with X or J or both of them against a and A and 
occasionally disagrees with all four — X, J, a and A. b 

a There are more than 35 places where Bonon. with a, A, 
and X preserves words lacking in J, among which see 1003 b 
(ratv o€ kvkXlkojp . . . tcDv evdvypdfAfAtov), 1004 A (on tolvvv . . . 
to evOvypafi/xov), 1006 c (IXXojjiivrjv . . . dveiXov^iivtjv). For 
words in Bonon. lacking in others see e.g. 1003 b (vno rijs 
tpvxfjs omitted by X), 1005 b (to o y rjXeKTpov . . . tov oiorfpov 
omitted by c), 1005 c-d (IXvarrdv . . . TLXdrajvos omitted by J, g, 
y, a, A, E, B, /J 1 ), 1007 d (fiev omitted by all except Bonon., 
Voss., Escor., jS 2 ; and e<m omitted by a, A, j3\ y, E, B, e, n), 
1009 b (iiepcov firjdev a/ita omitted by a, A, y, B), 1010 c 
(Kpdnarov . . . emit omitted by J, g, a, A, y, E, B), 1011 A 
(Xvycjvra . . . aw omitted by X, a, A, y, E, B, c ), 1011 b 
(v^ Ata omitted by J, g, a, A, 1 , y, E, B). 

b Examples of this last case are 1011 a in the preceding 
note, 1010 b (ScoAckto? : StaAoyos -Bonon.), 1010 d (fir) omitted 
by X, J, a, A) ; of agreement with X against a and A 
1005 c-d, 1009 b, 1010 c, and 1011 b in the preceding note 
and 1006 c (rcTa/icW) and 1009 a (to>) ; of agreement with 
J against a and A 1002 d (aAAa aXXois), 1004 b (futv omitted 
by X, a, A), 1009 e (koO* avrd) ; of agreement with X and J 



It must have been copied from a ms. which, though 
mutilated at the beginning of the work in the same 
way as a, had a text in some cases nearer to that of 
X and in a few nearer to that of J than to that of a. 

The text of Voss. 16, though for the most part 
identical with that of Bonon., differs from it in seven- 
teen places. In six of these differences, moreover, 
Voss. agrees with J 1 and in three others with n * ; 
and this suggests that Voss. was copied not from 
Bonon. itself but possibly from the latter 's archetype 
or a ms. very much like it. 

The same is true of Escor. T-ll-5, which agrees 
with Voss. against Bonon. eight times and with 
Bonon. against Voss. seven times but disagrees with 
both Bonon. and Voss. in 31 cases, in two of which 

against a and A 1006 d (Xa^dvovras), 1007 d (icm omitted 
by a, A), 1008 d (AoyiariKov), 1011 a (rds omitted by a, A). 

a This is assuming that in 1005 c-d (where Hubert's 
apparatus is doubly in error) the line through ovtws vtto 
rod HXdrwvos was drawn by the first hand of Bonon. Other- 
wise the differences would be eighteen. 

b 1004 a (cvdvypawioi : €vdvypap.p,ov -J» &♦ Voss.) ; 1004 a 

(GVVapfJLOTTOfJL€VOLS J <7VVOp/40TTO/A€VOS "J, g, VoSS. 1 ) ; 1005 A 

(d<j>t€fjL€V(x) s i<t>L€^Uvo> -J 1 , g, Voss., Escor.) ; 1005 c (to> : to -J, 
g, Voss.) ; 1005 E-F (irXrjdvovres : 7tAt}9vvovt€S -J, g. Voss., 
Escor.) ; 1011 b (dtojpiKa : 0€a>pr)TiKa -J, g, Voss., Escor.) ; 
1010 c (Evrjvos: €Vtovos -n, Voss.) ; 1011 a (irapa rofr: Trap* 
ols -n, Voss.) ; 1011 a (to>v npofidTa>v aw . . . : ovv omitted 
by n and Voss.). The last is one of the two passages adduced 
by Pohlenz and Hubert (Hubert-Drexler, Moralia vi, 1, 
p. xiv) ; in the other, 1003 a, though Voss. disagrees with 
Bonon. and others (ovwnrjpxov), its reading, ovwndpxovt is 
not that of J 1 as it is there said to be. 

e Perhaps a dozen of these are errors of the scribe of 
Escor. himself, one of which is interesting as a warning, 
however, for it can be only by a coincidence that in 1004 a 
Escor. omits seven words that are omitted by J and g but 
are preserved by all other mss. 



it agrees with others in the correct reading." In 
1011 a Escor. like Voss. and n omits the prefix aw 
preserved by Bonon. and /? alone but alone has Ae- 
yovra instead of the Xvywma of these four mss., and 
in 1003 a it alone has awvTrdpxovoiv instead of the 
avvvirdpxov of Voss. and the correct avvvTrrjpxov of 
Bonon. Moreover, it alone has /cat cXvandv in 1005 c, 
TrapaXiTTovra ixrjdev koI in 1009 b where Bonon. and 
Voss. have fiepcov fxrjdev a/xa /cat, and in 1010 D 6pd> . . . 
vac. 30 . . . aAA' oKTirep ojjlov instead of their dpoo 
fieXXwv vvv Sfxov rt. 

In that part of E that fills folios 606 r -610 r (rod 
vorjrov fjiovov [1002 d] — to the end) and was copied 
before the beginning of the work had been found 
E never agrees with a against A. It agrees with 
A, a 2 and others against a 1 thrice, 6 with A against a 
eight times, c and with A 2 against a and A 1 twice d ; 
but once it agrees with a 1 and A 1 against a and A as 
corrected/ and eight times it disagrees with both 
a and A. One of these differences is a matter of 
word-order and is changed by E 2 (1003 b), one is 
the omission by E and B of two words that appear in 
all other mss. (1010 a : /ca0' avro), and three concern 

a 1004 b (eVrcum -E, B, n, Escor.), 1008 e (ov -Escor. 
with all except n, Bonon., Voss). 

b 1002 E (Set : hrf -a 1 , *), 1009 d (to tt P o>tov omitted by a 1 ), 
1009 f (rov \4yovra : \4yov -a 1 ). 

c In five of these cases E and A are wrong, though a is 
right (1006 b [o* 817 -a], 1007 a [Zicyovos -a], 1007 f [Trpdrc- 
pov -a], 1008 c [n/zojota? -a], 1009 E [/cat -a]) ; in two E and 
A are right and a wrong (1003 a [rj -E, A] and 1011 a 
[rov -E, A]) ; and in one all are wrong (1005 a [Jjkov -a 2 ; 
cfcov -E, A]). 

d 1003 e (™oo> -E, A 2 ) and 1005 c (tjj rpi^i -E, A 2 ). 

« In 1006 a the ov after nporepov that is absent from X, c, 
n and is erased in a and cancelled in A is present in E. 



the form of a single word a ; but in two cases E with 
B has a word that is in no other ms., 6 and in 1009 b 
there are in E three words, ii€pa>v firjOev a/za, that 
are absent from the lacuna in a, A, y, and B and 
occur only in X, /?, e, n, Bonon., and Voss. The 
scribe of E might have found these three words in 
the ms. from which he later copied the beginning 
of the work and might then have entered them here 
in the lacuna that he had left ; but, if so, it is strange 
that the scribe of B, whether he copied the whole 
work from E or from the ms. whence E took the first 
part of it, omitted just these three words and pre- 
served exactly the lacuna of a, A, and y. It is more 
probable that the scribe of E copied the three words 
in question and all this second part of the work from 
a congener of a, which was also the source of A's 
corrections. 6 

In the first part of the work (999 c — 1002 d), which 
the scribe of E added later, there are 53 cases in 
which E agrees with X against J ; and in fifteen of 
these E preserves a word or words missing from J 
(cf. 1000 a, c, and e ; 1001 c and d ; 1002 a). In 
only two cases does E agree with J against X ; and 
in another, where it agreed with X, it was changed 
so that E 2 agrees with J instead. d In eight cases 

a 1004 b (ivrduu -E, B, n, Escor. ; zvoraou -a]] other 
mss.), 1004 c (Kvf<Xo<f>opr)TiKr)v : KVKXo^opLK-qv -E, B, n), and 
1005 a (avv€7Ttraxvvcov : eVtra^vvcuv -E, B, Escor.). 

b 1007 f (ocXrjvrjv : ttjv a^XrjvrjV -E, B) and 1009 A (jxeoo- 
T-qras •* cjs fi€<TOTr)Tas -E, B). 

c Cf. Valgiglio, De Fato, p. xl and his references to Treu 
and Larsen, p. xxxix, n. 36. 

d 999 d {-TTorepov -E, B, J, g ; norepa -X, «r, n), 1001 b 
(rfj v\y -E, B, J, g, e, n ; rrj IAt? -X), 1001 c (yevovs -E 1 , 
X, €, n ; yivos -E 2 , J, g, B). 


E with B in agreement has a reading different from 
that of X and J a ; and in still another E, agreeing 
with X and J, was changed by E 2 to disagree with 
both. & The first part of the work, then, must have 
been copied by E from a ms. the text of which was 
much nearer to that of X than to that of J. 

In the first part of the work (999 c— 1002 d) B 
disagrees with E and all other mss. seven times, 6 in 
agreement with J disagrees with E and all others 
once, d and in agreement with E 2 disagrees with E 1 
thrice. 6 In the second part of the work B agrees 
once with E 2 and all other mss. against E 1 in the order 
of words (1003 a-b), disagrees with E eight times/ 
and once, though agreeing with E, has a " correction " 

« 1000 f {rj : koX -E, B ; omitted by X, J, g, c, n.). The 
other seven cases are 999 f, 1000 b, 1001 d (bis), 1002 a, 
1002 b, 1002 d. 

b 1002 a (ip.<j>aivop,4vu}v -B, E 2 ; iK^aivofiivcov -X, J, g, E 1 , 
c* n). 

c Twice in the order of words (999 e-f and 1001 b), thrice 
by wrongly omitting a word (1001 b [Zoikcv], 1002 a [iv after 
a>o7T€p], and 1002 b [rrjs after l/c re]), and twice in the form 
of a word (1000 a [Siavofxr) : vofirj -B] and 1000 d [votjtov : 

VOTjTTjV -B]). 

d 1002 B (ixiKpoTrjra : fiaKporrjra -J, B). 

• 1001 c (yivovs -E 1 , X, e, n ; yivos -B, E 2 , J, g), 1002 a 
(eV Sk : 8k with three dots superscript -E ; Bk omitted by B), 
and 1002 a (ipL<j>axvop.ivo)v -B, E 2 ; cKfaivopevaiv -E 1 and 
all other mss.). 

f 1004 B (KafirrvXarripas i KafnrvAoTcpas -B, c), 1007 E (ap- 
fioviq. : apfxovlav -B), 1007 F (rov iv fikv rots '• rov fikv rots -B ; 
rov fikv iv rots -J» g), 1008 c (dpc'fci : Ifa -B), 1008 c (rat 
Xoyiapicp real ovp.p.axov : ko\ avpLfxaxov tco Xoytop.a> -B ; accu 
XoytafjLtp avfjijiaxov -n), 1008 D {{m6.Tr] : V7rar^v-B), 1008 F (ore 
fiiv re fiera : ore fikv fjL€ra -B ; 6rk . . . vac. 5 . . . para -J ; 
ore p.€Ta -g), 1009 B (Xoyov fiepcov p.rjQkv d/Lta . . . vac. 13 . . . 
Kal -E ; Xoyov . . . vac. 34 . . . -B). 



that points to a variant resembling the readings 
of J and g. a This last and the lacuna in 1009 b are 
the strongest indications that the second part of the 
work in B was copied neither from E nor from the 
source of E for this part ; and, although no single 
passage decisively proves that B did not copy the 
whole work from E after E had been corrected, 6 it 
is at least equally possible that B copied it from the 
ms. whence E had taken the first part of it. 

Of the extant mss. containing the whole work the 
oldest is J (13th century), for the part of X that 
contains it was written in the 14th century. It has 
been asserted that J is nearer than X to the Planu- 
dean text/* but the very opposite is true. In that 
part of the work which is preserved in a and A 
(1002 d if.) J and X agree against a A E seven times 
and three more against a e ; but, where J and X 
disagree, while J agrees with a A E against X 
twenty times, with a 1 A 1 E against X a 2 A 2 once, 
and with a 1 against X a 2 A E once/ X agrees with 
a A E against J 167 times and with a against J four 

a 1003 B (hia.<f*(x)vov -B ; hia<f>4ptiv -J ; &ia<f>4pov -g ; 8ia<£a>- 
vov -E and all other mss.). 

b For the controversy concerning the relation of B to E 
see Plutarch, Moralia (L.C.L.),xn (1957), pp. 26-27 and 31- 
32 (with B. Einarson, Class. Phil., liii [1958], p. 265, n. 3), 
ix(l961), p. 305, and xi (1965), p. 6; Pohlenz-VYcstman, 
Moralia v\/2 (1959), pp. 228-229. 

c J 4 =the corrections made by Demetrius Ducas in pre- 
paring J as " copy for the printer of the Aldine edition M 
(rf. Treu, Ueberlieferung iii, pp. 22-26). 

d Hubert-Drexler, Moralia vi/1, p. xu. 

e In all eases I disregard differences of accent and breath- 
ing alone. 

f Of these 22 cases two are omissions of words in X and 
Iwo are omissions of words in J. 


times more. Since not only X hut all other mss. 
preserve words that J omits, J cannot be the source 
of any other ms. for this work, not even of g. 

The agreement of g with J is striking even in the 
omission of words that are present in all other Mss. b 
and in the preservation of words that are missing 
from X c ; but g agrees with X and others against 
J at least 38 times , d in two cases preserving words 
that are omitted by J alone. e The close agreement 
of g with J suggests, therefore, that both were copied 
from the same ms. and that this ms. itself exhibited 
most of the errors and omissions common to J and 
g. It may have been a copy or a twin of the arche- 
type of X and may have contained some of the 
variants that X appears to have preserved from that 

a Of these differences between X and J 35 are omissions 
of a word or words in J and three are omissions of a word or 
words in X. If these omissions were the fault of the scribes 
of J and X themselves, their originals may have shown less 
of a difference in relation to a A E, as is indicated by 1006 c, 
where X agrees with a A E in preserving sixteen words 
omitted by J and yet in these sixteen words differs from a A 
E three times. 

6 J and g agree against all other mss. more than 150 
times, in 45 of which they omit words that all others have, 
e.g. 1000 E (/cat htopuevov and koX ficfiaiovvTos)<, 1003 b (twv 
hk kvkXlkcov . . . ras rwv €v$vypdfj,fxo}v) 9 and 1006 C (D^Xofidvrjv 
. . . av€i\ov/j,€V7jv). 

c 1003 B {{mo ttjs ifivxfjs) and 1011 a (Xvycjv npos rr)v tojv 
TTpopdrcov -omitted by X, E, B, and e as well as by a, A, y). 

d There are also about 25 unique readings in g, some ten 
of which are omissions of a single word, probably the fault 
of the scribe of g himself 

■ 1000 c (ov TTpoohi^rai . . . to -rrXrjdos) and 1004 o 
(7rA€iovtuv). The statement in Hubert-Drexler, Moralia vi/1, 
p. xiii, line 1 concerning voou/Ltcv(ov), " exhib. g," is er- 



archetype, e.g. 1005 f (kzvoviazvcls -X 1 ; Kivovfievas -J ; 


Kevovfievas -g and all other mss.), 1006 B (yap -X 1 ; 

*e -J, g; yap -all other mss.), 1008 E (dvcoraTuj -X 1 ; 
avu)T€pov -J, g ; dya>Tara> -all other mss.). 

Both € and the part of n written by the first 
hand a agree with X in preserving the many words 
omitted by J and g and almost never agree with J 
or g or J g alone against X, & and in the part of the 
work that is missing from the mutilated mss. {i.e. 
before rov votjtov in 1002 d) they agree in several 
significant readings with X, J, and g against E and 
B. c Thereafter, although they occasionally agree 
with a, A, E, and B against X, J, and g, d they pre- 
serve with X words that are missing from these 
mss/ and never agree with Bonon., Voss., or Escor. 
against all others ; but both of them also preserve 
words omitted by X/ and each of the two has words 

a That is from the beginning of the work through aAAa 
€T€pov at the end of 1008 a = folios l r -6 v (see p. 6, n. b 

b The exceptions are 1001 c (^aflij/iaTi/cov : ixadyriKov -J, e), 

1001 d (Se rots: hk rrjs -J, g, n), 1005 d (tis -omitted by 
J, g, e), 1005 f (vwcikovtos : v7rqKovros -J, e, n), and 

1006 B (tov : to -J, g, e). 

c 1000 b (<f>i\ooo<t>(q. -X, J, g, e, n ; oo<j>La -E, B), 1000 f 
(rj rrj : koX 177 -E, B ; 777 -X, J, g, e, n), 1001 d (aviaa r/i^ara 
. . . €T€fX€ -E, B ; anaa tcl rp.ri^ara . . . €T€/xv€ -X, J, g, e, n), 

1002 b (0€iW : Oeols -X, J, g, e, n ; voijtoi? -E, B). 

d 1006 D (Aa/x/Javovras : Xa^dvovra e, n, a, A, E, B), 

1007 d (eort -omitted by e, n, a, A, jS 1 , y, E, B), 1007 e (ov 
(jxivAtDV : ovBe <j>av\u>v -e, n, a, A, jS 1 , y, E, B, J 2 ). 

* 1005 c-D (awfidroiv elAvorrav ovtojs vtto tov UXdrajvos 6 -X, 
c, n ; aajfxdrcjv . , . vac. . . . 6 -a, A, E, B ; aajfiaTCDv. -J, 

g. y)« 

' 1003 b (utto rijs *livxrj$)* 1007 f (*ai -omitted by X alone). 


that the other omits. a Neither e nor this part of n, 
then, could have been derived from any of the extant 
mss. ; and both are probably independent copies of 
the archetype of X. 

This is not the case, however, with folios 7 r -9 v of n 
(oi yap d)$ Kvpiav [1008 a subfinein\ to the end of the 
work). The text of these folios, written in a hand 
different from that of folios l r -6 v , while agreeing 
with e and X in preserving words omitted by J and 
g, by E and B, and by a, A, and y, b also preserves 
words omitted by e and X c ; and in all these passages 
n is in agreement with one or more of the group con- 
sisting of Bonon., Voss., and Escor., as it also is in 
23 of the 24 cases in which — besides five readings 
unique to it — it disagrees with e. In eleven of these 
23 cases, moreover, n is in agreement only with one 
or more of this group (/3 1 or /? 2 included in some 
cases). It was certainly from a ms. related to this 
group, therefore, and possibly from the archetype 
of Bonon. that this last part of the work in n was 

a e.g. 1001 a sub finem (rov tckvcooclvtos -omitted by n 
alone), 1005 a (a/xa -omitted by n alone), 1005 b (to o' rj~ 
XcKTpov . . . arvv€(f>€XK€Tai rov afojjpov -omitted by e alone), 
1007 e (/cat TrpatTO) -omitted by c alone). 

b 1009 b (Xoyov fxepwv fi-qOkv a/ua /cat -e, n, X, /?, Bonon., 
Voss. ; Xoyov . . . vac. . . . /cat -a, A, y, B), 1010 a (/ca0' avro 
-omitted by E, B), 1010 c (Kpanarov . . . /ucpo? etvai -omitted 
by J, g, a, A, y, E, B, 1 ), 1011 b (vr) Ata -omitted by J, g, 
a, A, y, E, B, p). 

c 1010 d (€K7Ta)fj.aai fx-q -n, Bonon., Voss., Escor., p 2 ; 
fjur} omitted by all other mss.), 1011 a ('Ohvvoea Xvyatvra npos 
tt)v tcov 7TpoPdTU)v . . . vac. . . . ov -n, Voss. ; 'OoiKraea . . . 
vac. . . . ov -X, a, A, y, E, B, c). 




1. Tt hrfTTore rbv YitoKpaTr\v 6 0ed$ /xaiovcrOai 2 
p,kv eKeXevaev erepovs, avrov Se yevvav clttzko)- 
Xvaev, a>s* iv Qeairrjrcp Xeyerai; Ov yap slpa)- 

V€v6jjL€v6s y€ Z KCU TTa'l^iOV TtpOU^XP'h 00 ' 1 ^ ®- V T< £ 
D TOV* 0€OV OVOjjLGLTl. Kdl aXXiOS €V Tip ©eCUT^TO) 

7roAAd fJLtydXavxcL Kai oofiapa HcoKpdrei irepi- 
t40€ik€v, (hv Kai ravr earl- * noXXol yap 877/ 
cS davpidaiz, irpos /xe outco 8 oiereOrjoav, tour 
arexvcos 8aKV€iv 7 imiSdv riva Xrjpov avrojv d<£- 
aipcbfiai' feat ovk olovrai jjl€ evvoia rovro iroielv, 
Troppa) 6vt€s rod elhivai on ovSels Oeds &VOVOVS 
dv0pa)7TOig ovo' eyu) Svavoia roiovrov ovSev Spa), 
dXXd fiot tftevSos re avyx<*>prjaai Kai dXrjOes d- 
(fravlaai ovSapubs fle/xts"." 

Horepov* ovv ttjv iavrov </>vaiv <1)S KpiTiKO)- 

1 X, J, g, E, B, €, n ; irXarcoviKa t,r)r^fxara wv oi>x €Vp€0T] 
-q any -a, A, ft Bonon. C 3635, Voss. 16, Escorial T-ll-5 (all 
beginning with rod vot\rov povov [1002 d]) and y (beginning 
with ri hrprors rrjv 4> v X*) v [1^02 e]). 

2 fji(U€V€adai -Plato (Theaetetus 150 c 7). 3 t€ -J, g. 

4 rco -omitted by J and added superscript by J 4 ; rod 
-omitted by X, g, E, B, e, n. 

8 rj?>7) -Nogarola from Theaetetus 151 c 5. 

6 7TpOS fJL€ OVTCJ -X, E, B, €, n, PlatO ; OVTCx) TTpOS fJL€ -J, fr. 

7 <€TOLfioi c?vat> -added by Stephan us from Theaetetus 
151 c7. 




1. Whyever did god, as is stated in the Theaetetus* 
bid Socrates act as midwife to others but prevent 
him from himself begetting ? Certainly he would 
not have used the name of god in irony or jest b ; 
and besides in the Theaetetus Socrates has been 
made to say many arrogant and haughty things, 
among them this c : " For a great many men, my 
excellent friend, have got into such a state of mind 
towards me as practically to bite when I remove 
some silliness of theirs ; and they do not believe 
that I am doing this out of benevolence, for they 
are a long way from knowing that no god is male- 
volent towards men and that neither do I do any 
such deed out of malevolence but that it is quite 
illicit for me to admit falsehood and suppress truth.' ' 

Is it then his own nature, as being more dis- 

• Plato, Theaetetus 150 c 7-8. 

5 Cf, Plato, Symposium 216 e 4-5 (elpcwevofievos 8c ko.1 
ttoI^cqv rravra rov fiiov npos tovs avdpatirovs SiarcAci). The ten- 
dency to dismiss as " irony " statements of Socrates that 
connected with god his behaviour in carrying on his elen- 
chus is mentioned not only in Anon, in Platonis Theae- 
tetum (Pap. Berl. 9782), col. 58, 39-49 (p. 39 [Diels-Schubart]) 
but also in the Platonic Apology 37 e 5 — 38 a 1. 

e Theaetetus 151 c 5-d 3. 

* 7roT€pa -X, e, n. 



(999) repav fj l yonfjuorepav ovaav 8e6v 7rpo<j€t7T€, Kad- 
diT€p MzvavSpos " 6 vovs ydp rj[io)V 6 deos n 
Kai 'Hpa/cActros' " tfOos dvdpd)7Tov 2 Sai/xcov "• t) 
E delov ti /cat Saifioviov a>c dXr]du>s alriov v<f>y)yrj- 
aaro 2a>/cpar€t tovto rfjs cf)iXoao</)Las to yevos, 
a) tovs dXAovs e^erd^ojv del rvcffov /cat 7rXdvov* 
/cat dXa^oveias kol rod fiapets elvai Trp&rov fiev 
avTols etra /cat rot? avvovaiv dTrrjXXarre; /cat 
yap uxjirep €/c tvx^]9 tot* <f>opdv owe/??) yeveaOai* 
ao(f>i(jT(jJV iv rfj r EAAa6V /cat tovtols oi veoi 
ttoXv reXovvres 6 dpyvpiov oltjiacltos irrXr^povvro /cat 
8o£o<jo(/)ias , /cat Xoycov e^Xovv* axoXrjv /cat Siarpt- 

1 i) -Turnebus, Nogarola ; Kai -all mss. 

2 dvdpJi7r<o -Bernardakis (cf. Stobaeus, Anth. iv, 40, 23 = 
v, p. 925, 12 [Hense]) ; but cf. dvdpconajv in Alexander, De 
Fato, p. 170, 18-19 and De An. Librl Mantissa, p. 185, 23 

3 vXdmjs -J, g. 

4 ysviodai ovvifS-r) -J, g. 

6 7ToAuT€AoUVT€£ "X 1 , J 1 , €• 

6 eJ^Aow -X, E, €, n, Bcorr. (iffiovv -B l with A superscript 
over T ) ; fi?Aou -J, g. 

a Being predominantly, therefore, cognition (cf. t<5 KpiriKco 
in Zte v4w. Proc. in Timaeo 1024 b infra), the part or faculty 
which exists without difference in the soul of gods also (cf 
Albinus, Epitome xxv, 7 [Louis] =p. 178, 32-33 [Hermann]). 
For to yovtfiov as part of the irrational soul cf. Philo Jud., 
De Agricultura 30-31 (ii, p. 101, 5-7 [Wendland]) and Quis 
Rerum Div. Here's 232 (iii, p. 52, 13-15 [Wendland]) ; 
Plutarch probably identified it with that fifth part which he 
calls now OpeirriKov and again <I>vtik6v (De E 390 f and 
De Defectu Orac. 429 e; cf Aristotle, De Anima 415 a 
23-26 and Eth. Nic. 1102 a 32-b 2). 

b Cf. ort eweafci iavrov Bcti (Anon, in Platonis Theaete- 
tum [Pap. Berl. 9782], col. 58, 42-43) and tw dew awera^v 
iavrov (Olympiodorus, In Platonis Alcibiadem Priorem, 
p. 53, 14-15 and pp. 173, 21-174, 9 [Creuzer]). 



cerning than fertile, that he called god, 6 as Men- 
ander said " for our intelligence is god " c and 
Heraclitus " the character of a man is his guardian 
spirit " d ; or did some truly divine and spiritual 
cause c guide Socrates to this kind of philosophy 
with which by continually subjecting others to ex- 
amination he made them free of humbug and error 
and pretentiousness and of being burdensome first 
to themselves and then to their companions also ? ? 
For at that time as if by chance there happened also 
to have sprung up in Greece a crop of sophists ; and 
the young men, paying these persons a large amount 
of money, were getting themselves filled full of self- 
conceit and sham-wisdom and were zealous for dis- 

c Menander, frag. 749 (Koerte-Thierfelder) =frag. 762 
(Kock) ; cf. frag. 64 (Koerte-Thierfelder) =frag. 70 (Kock). 

d Heraclitus, frag. B 119 (D.-K. and Walzer) =frag. 121 
(By water). For the implied polemic against the conven- 
tional notion of the Balfiwv as the " destiny " assigned to a 
man cf. G. Misch, A History of Autobiography in Antiquity 
(London, 1950), pp. 94-95 ; and see Plato, Republic 617 e 1 
and 620 d 8, where the soul of each selects its own baipwv, 
and Apuleius, De Deo Socratis xv, 150 ( 44 . . . animus humanus 
etiam nunc in corpore situs daemon nuncupatur . . . daemon 
bonus id est animus virtute perfectus est ") = Xenocrates, frag, 
81 (Heinze). 

e This is surely a reference to the " divine sign," to 
8cu/xdviov (cf. 1000 d infra), which in Plato's Apology 31 c 8- 
d 1 Socrates calls 0€i6v ri koL Saifiovtov (cf. Proclus, In 
Platonis Alcibiadem Priorem, p. 79, 1-14 [Creuzer]=p. 35 
[Westerink]) and the nature of which is discussed by Plu- 
tarch in De Genio Socratis 580 c — 582 c and 588 c — 589 f. 
v<j>r)yrj(jaTo could not properly be used of the sign which 
according to Plato act diroTpinei . . . vporpiirci hk ovirore 
(Apology 31 d 3-4, cf. Phaedrus 242 c 1), but Plutarch seems 
to have neglected this limitation (cf. De Genio Socratis 581 b : 
Satfioviov etvai to kcdXvov tj KeXevov eXeye). 

1 Cf Plato, Theaetetus 210 c 2-4 and Sophist 230 b 4-c 3. 



(999) fta$ anpaKTovs iv epiai /cat $iXoTi[ilais KaXov hk 
Kdi ^pr\Qi\iov ovV otiovv. tov ovv iXeyKriKov 
Xoyov ouWep KaOaprtKov e\0JV (fxip/xaKov 1 6 Scu- 
F Kpdrrjg atjioTTiaros rjv erepovs iXeyxwv rw fir/Skv 
a7ro<f>aLV€adai, Kal pbdXXov ijirrero Sokcov £rjT€iv 
KOivrj tt)v dXrjOeiav ovk clvtos I8ia 86£rf fiorjOelv. 

1000 2. "EneiTa tov Kplveiv ovros axf>eXifxov to yev- 
vav* epuTohiov ion. TV<f>XovTGU yap to <f>iXovv 
rrepl to faXovfievov <£iAeiTai Se toji> iSicov ovScv 
ovtojs ojs S6£a Kal Xoyos vrro tov tckovtos* r) 
yap XeyofjLtvrj t€kvojv 8iKaioTaTrj StavopLrj* 7rpog 
Xoyovs ioTtv aSiKCDTOLTT)- Set yap £k€i fxev Xa- 
fieiv 5 to l8iov ivTavda 8e, Kav dXXoTpiov 77, to 
fSeXrioTOv. o0€v 6 yevvcov iSta yiyvercu cf>avX6- 

TtpOS €T€pOJV KplTTlS' Kal Kada7T€p 'HAetOUS TOJV 

cro<£cuv 6 rts €</>r) fieXTiovs av etvac tojv 'OAu/tim'ojj/ 
aya)VO0€Ta$, €i jxr/Se els 'HAetojy rjv aywvtoTrjs, 
ovtojs 6 fJLeXXcov iv Xoyois opd&s imoTaTrjaeiv 

1 (JHtppaKov ixojv -B. 2 &6(r)s -X, J 1 (? -rj over erasure). 

3 ycwatov -J, g. * vofirj -B. 

6 X, E, B, c, n ; cVct AajSctv fihf -J, g. 

* oo<f>iaru>v -J, g. 

° See 1000 c-v infra (ov yap awfULTos rj Hojtcpdrovs larpcla 
i/rvxfjs $' fjv . . . KaOapfios). The source is Plato's Sophist 230 c 
3-e 3 and 231 b 3-8. Gf. Philo of Larissa in Stobaeus, Eel. 
ii, 7, 2 (p. 40, 11-20 [Wachsmuth]) ; Albinus, Prologue vi 
(p. 150, 15-35 [Hermann]) ; Gebetis Tabula xix ; Philo 
Jud., DeDecalogo 10-13 (iv, pp. 270, 23-271, 13 [Cohn]). 

6 Theaetetus 150 c 5-6 ; cf. Anon, in Platonis Theaetetum 
(Pap. Berl. 9782), col. 54, 17-26. 

c Gf. Plutarch, Quomodo Adulator ab Amico Internoscatur 
72 a and Adv. Colotem 1 1 17 d (cf. Pohlenz-Westman, Moralia 
vi/2, p. 237, note to p. 194, 26-28) ; Plato, Gharmides 165 b 
5-8 and Gorgias 506 a 3-5 and Gratylus 384 c 1-3. 

d So given as from Plato in Quomodo Adulator ab Amico 


cussion of arguments and for disputations futile in 
wranglings and ambitious rivalries but not for any- 
thing fair and serviceable at all. So Socrates with 
his refutatory discourse like a purgative medicine a 
by maintaining nothing b claimed the credence of 
others when he refuted them, and he got the greater 
hold on them because he seemed to be seeking the 
truth along with them, not himself to be defending 
an opinion of his own. c 

2. In the second place, while the exercise of judg- 
ment is beneficial, begetting is an obstacle to it, for 
what loves is blinded about the thing it loves d and 
nothing of one's own is so beloved as is an opinion 
or an argument by its parent. For the distribution 
of offspring that is proverbially most just * is most 
unjust when applied to arguments, for in the former 
case one must take what is one's own but in the 
latter what is best even if it be another's/ For this 
reason the man who begets his own becomes a poorer 
judge of others ; and just as one of the sages said 
that Eleans would be better directors of the Olympic 
games if not a single Elean were entered in the con- 
test,^ so one who is going to be an upright moderator 

Intemoscatur 48 e-f and in Be Capiendo, ex Inimicis Utili- 
tate 90 a and 92 e ; Plato in Laws 731 e has Twf>\ovrai yap 

ff€pl TO <f>lXoVfJL€VOV 6 <f>lA(x>V. 

• I have not found the proverb or saying cited elsewhere. 

f Cf. Plato, Philebus 29 a (. . . Setv toAAot/x<i . . . Xcyav 
. . . ) and Phaedo 85 c 8-9 (. . . rov yovv pcXriorov to>v avdpo)- 
ttivcov Xoycov Xafiovra . . .). 

g Cf. Herodotus, ii, 160 and Diodorus Siculus, i, 95, 2. 
The impartiality with which the Eleans administered the 
games was, nevertheless, held to be exemplary {cf. Plutarch, 
I/ycurgus xx, 6 [52 c-d] =ifc(jr. et Imp. Apophthegmata 190 
c-d and 215 e-f; Dio Chrysostom, Oratio xiv = xxxi [von 
Arnim], 111; Athenaeus, viii, 350 b-c). 



^ -n /cat fipafitvaeiv 1 ov Sikglios ianv avros tfriXooTt- 
<j>avelv ouS' avrayiovi^eodai rols Kpivopievots. /cat 
yap ol tcov 'EAAtjvow arparrjyol rr/v rrepl rwv 
dptaretajv ijjfjtfrov cf>€poVT€$ avrovs aplorovs €Kpi- 
vav drravTes 2 ' /cat tcov (f>iXocr6<f>cov ovSels eoTtv, 
os ov tovto 7T€7Tovde St^a tcov u)G7T€p HojKpdrrjs 
ofxoXoyovvTtov firjbev Ihiov Xeyeiv ovroi Se Kada- 
povs fiovot, /cat aSeKOLGTOVs rfjs dXrjdelas Tiaptyov- 
otv iavrovs SiKaords. couTrep ydp 6 iv rols coolv 
drip, dv fjirj aradepos fj ju/^Se <f>tovrj$ tStas eprjpios dXX* 
r\X 0V KaL P°t£> ov pLtOTos, ovk aKpificos aVrtAa/z/Jave- 
Tat tcov cpdeyyofievcov, ovtco to* tovs Xoyovs €V cpi- 
Xoao<f>ia A Kplvov, dv ev8o8ev avrnrarayfj 5 (rt) 6 /cat 
C dvT7)XJ)> &voi;vv€Tov carat tcov Xeyofievcov eijcoOev. 
rj yap ot/ceta §o£a /cat ovvoikos ov 7Tpoo8e^€rai to 
Siacficovovv Trpos avTrjv, aW /xaprupet tcov alpeaecov 
to rrXrjOos' tov, dv dpiOTa rrpaTTT) cf>iXooo<f)ia , 
fxiav €^€t 8 KaTopdovoav olofievas oe ras aAAas 
dndaas /cat [laxo/JLevas 9 npos ttjv dXrjdetav. 

3. "Ert tolwv, et fiev ovSev icrTi /caraA^TrTov 
dvdpcoTTOJ /cat yvojaTov, €lkotcos 6 Beds drreKco- 

1 /cat ppap€va€iv -omitted by J, g. 

2 anavras -J* 

8 to -omitted by g. 

4 ao(f>ia -E, B. 

5 avrnrayv} -g. 

6 Hubert ; cvoodev <ri> avrnrarayfj -Wyttenbach. 

7 ov TTpocrhcgtrat, ... to ttXtjBos -omitted by J. 

8 <f>iXooo<l>ia t fttav €\€i -X, E, B ; <f>iXooo<j>Lav ^x (LV ~^» % « 
<f>iXoao<f>ia ixiav *X €LV ~ € » n * 

' /cat fiaxofievas -omitted by J, g. 

a Cf. Be Herodoti Malignitate 871 d-e and Themistocles 
xvii, 2 ; Herodotus, viii, 123, 

6 Cf. Theophrastus, Be Sensibus 19 {Box. Graeci, pp. 504, 



and umpire in arguments is bound not to crave the 
palm himself or to vie with the contenders. For 
even the generals of the Greeks when casting their 
ballot for the award of excellence all gave judgment 
for themselves as best ° ; and of philosophers there 
is none to whom this has not happened apart from 
those who like Socrates admit that they say nothing 
original, and these alone show themselves to be 
sound and incorruptible judges of the truth. For as 
the air in the ears does not accurately perceive utter- 
ances if it be not still and free from sound of its own 
but full of ringing and buzzing,** so what judges argu- 
ments in philosophy will have poor understanding of 
statements coming from without if they are muffled 
by the clatter and noise {of something) from within. c 
For personal opinion to which one is wedded will not 
accept what disagrees with her, as the multitude of 
systems testifies, of which philosophy, if she is faring 
her best, involves a single one being right and all 
the others guessing and being in conflict with the 

3. Furthermore, if nothing is apprehensible and 
knowable to man,<* it was reasonable for god to have 

29-505, 2) and 41 (Dox. Graeci, p. 511, 6-8) = Diogenes of 
Apollonia, frag. A 19 (ii, p. 55, 26-2$ [D.-K.]). 

c C/. the explanation of Socrates' sensitivity to the 
" spiritual voice " given in De Oenio Socratis 588 d-e and 
589 c-d. 

d The position of Arcesilaus (for whom see note a on De 
Stoic. Repug. 1036 a infra), ascribed by him to Socrates also 
(cf. Adv. Colotem 1121 f— 1122 a ; Cicero, Acad. Post, i, 
44-45 and De Oratore iii, 67 ; Lactantius, Div. Inst, iii, 6, 
T=p. 188, 11-14 [Brandt]; A. Goedeckemeyer, Die Oe- 
schichte des griechischen Skeptizismus [Leipzig, 1905], pp. 



(1000) Xvcrev avrov VTrr/vepLia /cat iffevorj /cat djSe'jSata 
yevvdv iXeyx^iv 1 8e tovs aXXovs r)vdyKa[,e roiavra 
So£d£ovrac . ov yap fiiKpov rjv 6<j>eXos clXXgl fie- 
yiorov 6 tov fieylarov twv kclkcov, dirdrris /cat 
K€vo<j>poGV\rqs , diraXXdrTCov Xoyos 

ouo >2 'AaKXrjmdSais tovto y eScoKe Beds. 

ov yap oibfiaTOS r) H(x)Kpdrovs larpeta tftvxrjs 8* 

D rjv vttovXov /cat hie^>0appLevr\s KddapfJLOS. el S* 

eoTiv €7naTTJp,rj tov dXrjOovs ev Se to dXrjdes, ovk 

eXdTTOV 6^€l TOV efipOVTOS 6 pLadtOV TTCLpd TOV 

evpovTOS* Aa/zj8dVet Se fidXXov 6 pr) Trerreiapevos 
e^eu/, KaL AattjSdvet to fteXrioTOV e£ dnavTcov, wa- 
ne p 6 p/Tj T€KO)V TTCuSa 7TOl€lTCLl 9 TOV dpiOTOV. 

4. "0/>a Se fxr) TaXXa p,ev ovoepuds r)v d£ia 
G7Tov&r}s TToiTfpLaTa /cat /xatfryiiara /cat Xoyoi prjTo- 
pwv /cat Soy/xara ao<f>icrTcov, a Soj/cpar^v 4 yevvdv 
to Sat/xdvtov d7T€Ka)Xvo€v rjv Se piovrjv rjyecTO 2a>- 
Kpdrr)s oo^iav, (t^v) 5 irepl to delov /cat votjtov* 

1 Xfyciv -J, g. 

* * t ' 8' -Theognis (ov 8* -Vat gr. 915). 

3 Wyttenbach ; 7ratSo7rot€rrai -mss. 

1 J, g ; HajKpdrT] -X, E, B, €♦ n. 

6 <-n7v> -added by Wilamowitz. 

6 vorjTrjv -B. 

• Cf. Plato, Theaetetus 151 e 5-6 and 160 e 6—161 a 4. 

* Theognis, 432 ; cf. the use of the line (also with initial 
ovh*) by Dio Chrysostom, Oratio i, 8 (von Arnim). 

e Cf. Plato, Sophist 230 c— 231 b and note a on p. 22 
supra ; and with foxis vttovXov cf. Gorgias 480 b 1-2 and 
524 e 5—525 a 2. 

d Cf. Cicero, Acad. Prior, ii, 115 and 147 and De Orator e ii, 
30 (" cum plus uno verum esse non possit ") ; Seneca, 
Epistle cii, 13 ; Lucian, Hermotimus 14 (to & ye aXrjdcs . . . 
Iv fy avrCtv . . .) ; and Aristotle, Anal. Prior. 47 a 8-9. 


prevented Socrates from begetting inane and false 
and baseless notions and to compel him to refute 
the others who were forming such opinions. For 
the discourse that liberates from the greatest of 
evils, deception and vanity, was not a slight but a 
very great help — 

This gift god didn't grant even Asclepius' sons. 6 
For the treatment given by Socrates was not of the 
body but was a purgation of the ulcerous and cor- 
rupted soul. c If, however, there is knowledge of 
what is true and what is true is single,** he who has 
learned it from the discoverer does not possess it less 
than he who discovered it e ; but the one who ac- 
quires it is rather he who is not sure that he possesses 
it/ and he acquires what is best of all, just as he 
who is not a parent himself adopts the child that is 

4. Consider too that, while the other things, 
poetry and mathematics and rhetorical speeches 
and sophistic doctrines, which the spiritual power 
prevented Socrates from begetting, were worth no 
serious concern, what Socrates held to be alone 
wisdom, {that) which he called passion for the 

* See, however, De Recta Ratione Audiendi 48 b-d and 
Plutarch's advice there daK€iv cfyuz rr\ iiadtfaci r-qv cvpemv. 
The proverbial alternative rj evpeiv fj irap dXXov fiadetv (cf> 
Plato, Laches 186 c and 186 e— 187 a ; Phaedo 85 c 7-8 
and 99 c 6-9; [Alclbiades i] 106 d, 109 d-e, and 110 d; 
[Demodocus] 381 e 6-8 ; Aristotle, Topics 178 b 34-35) was 
itself converted into a proof that fiddrjcns is dvdfxmjais (Maxi- 
mus of Tyre, Philos. x, v h -vi b=pp. 119, 8-120, 20 [Ho- 

f Contrast the situation of those who . . . rrpiv r/ AajSeiv 
€\€iv ofioXoyovvrcs ov Xafifidvovoiv (De Recta Ratione Audiendi 
47 n). g See note e on p. 21 supra. 



(KX)0) ipcoTLKTjV utt' olvtov Trpoaayopevofxevrji', ravT7]s ov 
yevtais eorw avuptoirois ovoe evpeais aAA avapLvr)- 
cris. 66 ev ovSev iSlSavKe HojKpdrrjs, aAA' ivSiSovs 
dpx&S drropicjv cbojrep ojSlvcdv tols viois eTTTjyetpe 

KOLL aV€KLV€L KoX OVV€^7Jy€ TO,? €pL<f)VTOVS VOTjCietS* 

koll tovto {jLaiooTLKrjv Teyyr\v aW/xa^ev, ovk iv- 
TiOelvav etjajQev, cjgtt^p ere pot TrpoaeTTOiovvTO, vovv 
tols IvTvyycLVovoiv , aAA' e^ovTas olkclov Iv 
iavrots dreXrj 8e koll ovyKexvfievov koll Seofitvov 1 
rod rp£(f)OVTos kcu fiefiaiovvTOS 2 imheiKvvovaav. 

1 . Ti hrjiTOTZ tov dvcordrco 9eov Trarepa rtbv z 


1 koX hcofxcvov -omitted by J, g. 

2 koX ficPaiovvTos -omitted by J, g. 

3 rwp -omitted by J, g. 

4 TTpOO&TTSV -J, g. 

6 noTcpov on -omitted by J, g. 
6 J, g ; yev7)Tcov -X, E, B, €, n. 

° Cf. Plato, Symposium 204 b 2-5 and 210 e— 212 a ; 
Republic 490 a 8-b 7 and 501 d 1-2 with 409 a (. . . fjv 
fiovrjv Set . . . ao<j>iav KaXciaOai) and Theaetetus 176 c 3-D 1. 

b Cf. Plutarch, De Defectu Orac. 422 b-c and the theses 
ascribed to him in Olympiodorus, In Platonis Phaedonem, 
pp. 155, 24^157, 12 and 212, 1-26 (Norvin). For parallels 
with this and the remainder of this section in Cicero, Albinus, 
Maximus of Tyre, and the anonymous commentator on 
Plato's Theaetetus cf. O. Luschnat, Theologia Viatorum, viii 
(1961/62), pp. 167-171 ; and for the Platonic doctrine of 
reminiscence cf. Meno 85 d — 86 b, Phaedo 72 e — 76 e and 
9 1 e, and Phaedrus 249 b 5-c 4. 

c Cf Theaetetus 151 a 5-b 1 and 157 c 9-n 2. Tiie Ip^imu 
vo-qocis here are not " inbred " as are the Stoic cfiifrvroi 
7r/x)A^ets (see note b on De Stoic. Repug. 1041 e infra), 



divine and intelligible, is for human beings a matter 
not of generation or of discovery but of reminiscence. 6 
For this reason Socrates was not engaged in teaching 
anything, but by exciting perplexities as if inducing 
the inception of labour-pains in young men he would 
arouse and quicken and help to deliver their innate 
conceptions c ; and his name for this was obstetric 
skill,* 1 since it does not, as other men pretended to 
do, implant in those who come upon it intelligence 
from without but shows that they have it native 
within themselves but undeveloped and confused and 
in need of nurture and stabilization. 


1 . Whyever did he call the supreme god father and 
maker of all things ? e Was it because he is of gods, 
the gods that are engendered/ and of men father, as 

despite the Stoic terminology : cf. Cicero, Tusc. Disp. i, 57 : 
", . . insitas . . . notiones quas iwolas vocant . . . " ; Anon, in 
Platonis Theaetetum (Pap. Berl. 9782), col. 47, 42-45 : . . . 
dvaTTTvacrcov avrcov rds <l>vmKas iwolas . . . ; and especially 
Albinus, Epitome iv, 6 (Louis) =p. 155, 17-29 (Hermann): 
vorjois • • • Slttt) . . . rj fi€v Trpo tov iv oiLfxari yeviodai tt^p ipv- 
Xyv . . . y€vofJi€vr)s 8* avTTJs iv oraj/xart. rj Tore Xcyofxivyj vorjois vvv 
iXixOr} <f>voiKT) ewoia. . . . 

* Cf. Theaetetus 161 e 4-6, 184 a 8-b 2, 210 b 8-9 ; Olym- 
piodorus, In Platonis Phaedonem, p. 159, 1-3 (Norvin) = Plu- 
tarch, Moralia vii, p. 33, 7-10 (Bernardakis). 

e A paraphrase of Timaeus 28 c 3-4 (tov p,kv ovv TroLrjTrjv 
Kal iraripa tov$€ tov ttclvtos), the interpretation of which is 
discussed at length by Proclus (In Platonis Timaeum i, pp. 
299, 13-319, 21 [Diehl], especially pp. 299, 21-300, 28; pp. 
303, 24-304, 22 ; and pp. 311, 25-312, 9) and which is para- 
phrased somewhat differently by Plutarch in Quaest. Conviv. 
718 A (. . . iraripa Kal Trot.rjT'qv tov T€ Koopiov Kai to>v dXXcov 
y€W7jTa>v . . .). Cf. also Timaeus 37 c 7 and 41a 5-7. 

f Cf. Timaeus 40 D 4 (dewv 6para>v Kal yewrjrtov). 



(1000) T7)p iartv, (bs 1 "Ofxrjpos €77wo/za£et, Troir)T7)s oe 

F tojv dXoyajv Kal diftvxwv; ovhe yap 2 ^ooYou 3 (f>r)- 

al XpvaLTnros irarepa KaXeladat rov TTapaoypvra 

TO 07T€plXa, KOLL7T€p €K TOV G7T€pfJiaT09 ytyOVOTOS. 

rj 4 rrj fxera^opa xpoj/xevos, o!)OTrep ei'cofle, rov 
dlriov Trarepa rod koojaov K€kXtjk€v; ojs tcov 
ipa>TiKa)v Xoyojv rraripa <f>aZ8pov iv Z?j/x7roaioj 
1001 7rpoa€i7T€v, elorjyqTrjv avrcov'' yevofxtvov iv oe 
T(p ofiojvvfxcp 8iaX6yto KaAAtVatSa 6 * ttoXXovs ydp 
KaV kclXovs Xoyovs iv </>tXooo<f)lq yeviodai, rrjv 
CLpX*J v iKeivov 7Tapaa)(6vTOS . 77 s oiafyipai na-r^p 
re TroirjTov kqX yevvrjoecos yiveGig ; 9 or? yap to 
yeyevvrjfiivov /cat, yiyovev, 10 ov fjLrjv dvarraXiv, ov- 
ru)s 6 yevvtfoas /cat jreTTotrjKev 11 ' ipujjvxov yap yi- 
veois 12 rj yiw7)ois ion, /cat Troirjrov (jlev, oto? 
oiKoo6p,os rj vcfxxvTrjs rj Xvpas Sypiiovpyos fj avopi- 
dvTos, 13 aTTTjXXoLKTai yevofievov to epyov 14, rj 8' cltto 

1 6 -€ ; cos -all other mss. 

2 X, E, B, n ; ov yap -J, g ; ovSe -e. 

3 Lconicus ; xopetov -X, E, B ; ^co/hou -J, g ; ^cupeiou -e, 

4 77 -Stephanus ; Kal -E (added superscript), B ; omitted 
by X, J, g, c> n. 

5 aurov -J, g. 

6 Wyttenbach ; KaAAtm'Sa*' -X, J, g ; /caAAi7T7u8ai' -E, B, 

€ ' U ' 

7 yap Kal -X, E, B, c, 11 ; yap tJv /ecu -J, g. 

8 ri -J, g ; ij -X, B, n ; <$ -E, e. 

9 E, B, e, n ; yevrfois -X (with * superscript over 77 -X l ) ; 
yonriai? -J, g ; iroi'qais -Leonicus. 

10 yeyovcv -mss. ; TrenoL-qrai -Donato Polo. 

11 <ov firjv avdira\iv> -added by Meziriac ; <ov firjp 6 
n€7ron)Ka)s yey€WT]K€v> -added by Pohlenz after Treiroi-qKev. 

18 ytveais ->r?s. ; Troirjats -Leonicus. 

13 avhptav t€ -J. li to yzvopLtvov tpyov -J, g. 

a Iliad i, 544 and often elsewhere. 



Homer names him 5 a but maker of irrational beings 
and of inanimate things ? b For not even of the 
placenta, says Chrysippus, c though it is a product of 
the seed, is he who provided the seed called father. 
Or is it by his customary use of metaphor that he 
has called him who is responsible for the universe 
its father ? So in the Symposium d he called Phaedrus 
father of the amatory discourses because he was in- 
stigator of them and in the dialogue that bears his 
name e called him blessed with fair children because 
as a result of his initiative philosophy had been filled 
with many fair discourses/ Or is there a difference 
between father and maker and between birth g and 
coming to be ? For as what has been born has ipso 
facto come to be but not contrariwise so it is that he 
who has begotten has ipso facto made, for birth is 
the coming to be of an animate thing. Also in the 
case of a maker, such as a builder is or a weaver or 
one who produces a lyre or a statue, his work when 
done is separated from him, whereas the principle 

6 This interpretation is mentioned and rejected by Proclus, 
In Platonic Timaeum i, p. 319, 15-21 (Diehl). 

c S.V.F. ii, frag. 1158. 

d Symposium 177 d 4-5 (cf. 177 a 4). 

e Phaedrus 261 a 3-4. 

f Cf. Phaedrus 242 a 8-b 5 and Hermias, In Platonis 
Phaedrum, p. 223, 18-19 (Couvreur) : ... koXovs ndiBas 
riKTovra tovs Aoyous. 

9 For this passive meaning of yiwriais cf. e.g. Cornutus, 
Theologia Graeca 30 (p. 58, 14 [Lang]) and Hippolytus, 
Refutatio, vii, 29, 14 (p. 212, 18 [Wendland]). The erroneous 
assumption that the word can have only the active meaning, 
44 procreation," was apparently responsible for the drastic 
emendations of the passage made in the sixteenth century 
and adopted by later editors. It should be noticed, moreover, 
that Hubert's report of the readings of X in this passage is 



(1001) tov ytvvrjoavTos &PXV Kai 8vvapas iyKtKparai 

T<3 T€KV(X)0€VTL KCLL (TVV€^€t TT)V <f)VOLV y aTTOGTTaopa 

kclI }x6piov ovoav rod reKvwaavros. 1 iirel roivvv 

B OV TT€77\aorfjL€VOl$ 6 KOCTpLOS OvSt GVVr]pfJLOOrfJL€VOt$ 
TTOirjpaOlV €OLK€V, 2 oAA' €V€OTlV 3 CLVTtp polpOL 

iroXXr) ^cpOTrjros 4 Kal detor^ros, fjv 6 6eos ey- 
Kar4a7T€ipev d(j> >b iavrov rfj vXrj* kolI Karepu^ev, 
€ik6tu)s ap,a Trarrjp re rod Kocrpov, £cooi> yeyovo- 

TO$ t Kdl 7TOl7]TrjS €7TOVOpd£,€TOU. 7 

2. Tovtcov Se pdXiora rfjs UXdrcovos drrro- 
pevcov So£t?9, €7TL(jTr)oov el KaKelvo 8 XexOrjoerai 
7Ti6av<jL>s' on, SveZv 9 ovrcov i£ cSv 6 Koopios ovvi- 
ot7}k€, otbpLaros Kal ^v^^S , to /xev ovk iyevvrjoe 
0€O£ dAAa, rfjs vArjs irapaaxop£vr\s , epop(f)ajG€ kolI 
ovvrjppoae, irepaaiv olk€lols kolI ayfipaai hr\oas 
C Kal opioas to airupov rj Se fax?), vov peraaxovoa 
Kal Xoyiapiov Kal dpp,ovias y ovk epyov iorl rod 

1 tov TCKvuioavTos -omitted by n. 

2 zoiKev -omitted by B. 

3 lonv -J. 

4 £,cooTr)TOs rroWr) -B. 

6 rrj iXrj -X. 
7 ouofjid^craL -€. 

8 KOLK€l -J, g. 

9 X, E ; Suotv -J, g, B, € , n. 

° Cf. De Sera Numinis Vindicta 559 d (to yewrjOtv ot>x 
cos Tt Sfjfu.ovpyrjfjLa 7T€7roir)ixevov airrjWaKTai tov yevvrjaavros) ; 
S.V.F. ii, p. 308, 15-18 ; [Galen], Ad Gaurutn x, 4 (p. 47, 
12-15 [Kalbfleisch]) ; and contra Philoponus, De Aeternitate 
Mundi xiii, 9 (pp. 500, £6-501, 12 [Rabe]). 



or force emanating from the parent is blended in the 
progeny a and cohibits its nature, which is a frag- 
ment or part of the procreator. & Since, then, the 
universe is not like products that have been moulded 
or fitted together but has in it a large portion of 
vitality and divinity, which god sowed from himself 
in the matter c and mixed with it, it is reasonable 
that, since the universe has come into being a living 
thing, god be named at the same time father of it 
and maker. 

2. While this most nearly coincides with Plato's 
opinion, consider whether there will be plausibility 
in the following statement also : There are two con- 
stituent parts of the universe, body and soul. d The 
former god did not beget ; but, matter having sub- 
mitted itself to him, he formed and fitted it to- 
gether e by binding and bounding the unlimited with 
suitable limits and shapes/ The soul, however, when 
it has partaken of intelligence and reason and con- 

b Cf. 8. V.F. i, frag. 128 including Plutarch, De Cohibenda 
Ira 462 f. 

c Cf. Quaest. Conviv. 718 a (. . . aAAi? oe hwd^i rod Beov 
T V ^27 yovifjLov o.pxh v • ' ' cvtckovtos) and Plato, Timaeus 
41c 7-d 1, where the figure of " sowing " is used but not in 
connexion with the vitalization of the universe, for which cf. 
Timaeus 36 d 8-e 5. 

d Cf. Aibinus, Epitome xiii, 1 (p. 73, 4-5 [Louis] =p. 168, 
6-7 [Hermann]) ; Plato, Timaeus 34 a 8-b 4 and 36 d 8- 
e 1. 

e Cf. Be An. Proc. in Timaeo 1014 b-c (tV 8' ovaiav koX 
vXtjv . . . ifinapaGx^iv. . . . erafc /cat 8i€Koafir)a€ Kal Gvvrjpyuoce 
. . .) and De hide 372 f (. . . ^copa teal vXrj . . . irap^xovaa 
y€wdv e*f iavrfjs €K€ivco . . .). 

f Cf. Quaest. Conviv. 719 c-e and De An. Proc. in Timaeo 
1023 c. For the figure of the " bond " cf. Timaeus 31 c 1— 
32 c 4 and for the " binding " of the unlimited by limit 
Philebus 27 d 9. 



(1001) deov fiovov dXXd /cat fiepos, ov8e in avrov dAAa 
/cat 1 aV avrov /cat e£ avrov yiyovev. 


1. 'Ev rfj rioAtreta [youv] rod 3 iravros atone p 
puds ypajjLjjbfjs rerpLTjpLevrjs els 4 aVtaa T/i^/xara, 
rrdXiv repwojv etcdrepov rprjpia ct? ovo dvd rov 
avrov Xoyov, ro re rod opojfievov yevovs 5 /cat to 
rov voovfievov, reoaapa rd* ndvra rroirjaas rov 
fxev vorjrov irpwrov ano^alvei ro rrepl rd rrpcbra 
eiSr), Bexirepov ro {ladrjfjLariKov, 7 rov 8\ aloOrjrov 
7Tpo)rov fiev rd orepipvia awpara, hevrepov 8e 
rag eiKovas /cat rd el&ojXa rovrwv /cat Kpirrjpiov 8 
D eKaorco rcov reoodpwv aTrohihojoiv thiov, vovv fiev 
ro) Trpojrco hidvoiav he rip fiaO^fiariKO) 9 rols S* 
aloOrjrols rrlorLV, eiKaotav 8e rols 10 irepl rd elhcoXa 
Kal rds eiKovas* ri ovv Siavorjdels els 11 dvcaa rp,r\- 

1 *al -omitted by J, g ; aAAa Kal -all other mss. 

2 New question distinguished by Wyttenbach. 

3 [yovv] -deleted by Wyttenbach ; yovv rov -X, E, B, «, 
n ; yovv -J, g. 4 els -omitted by J, g. 

5 yevovs -X, E\ e, n, Plato (Republic 509 d 8) ; yevos -J» 
g, B, E 2 (os superscript over ovs). 

6 Hubert (rerrapa [ra] -Wyttenbach) ; nepl ra -J ; napa ra 
-all other mss. ; pep-q 8* (i.e. fieprj reaaapa) -Bernardakis, Papa- 
basileios (Athena, x [1898], p. 225). 7 paOnriKov -J 1 , e. 

8 Kpiryploj -J, g. 9 pLadrjriKw -J, g 1 . 

10 be rrjs -J, g, n. u els -omitted by J, g. 

° C/. 1003 a infra and Z><? An. Proc. in Timaeo 1014 e and 
1016 b (quoting Timaeus 36 e 6—37 a 1). dpixovla, which I 
regularly translate " concord," means not harmony " in 
the modern sense of notes played or sung together as 
" chords *' but generally a " fitting together " and in music 
such a fitting together of sequential sounds to produce a tune 
or a " scale " (e.g. De An. Proc. in Timaeo 1021 u infra) ; and 



cord,° is not merely a work but also a part of god 
and has come to be not by his agency but both from 
him as source and out of his substance. 6 


1. In the Republic c he likens the sum of things to a 
single line that has been divided into unequal seg- 
ments, again divides into two in the same ratio each 
of the two segments, that of the visible class and 
that of the conceptual, and, having made four in 
all, declares first of the intelligible segment that of 
the primary ideas, second the mathematical, and 
first of the perceptible segment the solid bodies and 
second the semblances and images of these. Also 
to each of the four he assigns its own peculiar 
criterion : intelligence to the first and thought to 
the mathematical segment and to the perceptibles 
belief and conjecture to matters of images and 
semblances. What, then, did he have in mind when 
he divided the sum of things into unequal d seg- 

of harmony in this sense the theory is -q apfiovucy (e.g. 1001 f 

6 Cf Be Sera Numinis Vindicta 559 d (. . . e£ avrov yap* 
ovx vn avrov, yeyovaf war* e^ei ti koli <f>€p€Tai tcov £k€ivov ficpos 
cv iavrw . . .) and see Jones, Platonism of Plutarch^ p. 10, 
n. 15 and p. 105 ; H. DCrrie, Museum Helveticum, xxvi 
(1969), p. 222 and Philomathes : Studies . . . in Memory of 
Philip Merlan (The Hague, 1971), pp. 40-41. 

c Republic 509 d 6 — 511 e 5. 

d Even in antiquity some, apparently reading dv ioa or tea 
in Republic 509 d 6 (cf av t Icra -cod. F), tried to explain why 
Plato had divided the line into equal segments (Iamblichus, 
De Comm. Math. Scientia, p. 36, 15-23 [Pseudo-Archytas, 
frag. 3, Nolle] and p. 38, 15-28 [Festa] ; Scholia in Platonis 
Rem Publicam 509 d [vi, p. 350, 9-16, Hermann]) ; but con- 
trast Proclus, In Platonis Rem Publicam i, p. 288, 18-20 and 
26-27 (Kroll). 



(1001) fiara 1 to irdv ere/ic; 3 /cat irorepov tcov rju/q/xa- 
tojv, to votjtov fj to aloOrjTov, p,€t£6v Zgtiv; clvtos 
yap ov SeSrjXajKe. 

Ao^€t 8* avToOev fxev etvai /xet£oi> to aloOrjTov 
7) yap dfieptoTos ovaia /cat /caTa TavTov tboavTtos 
exovoa tcov votyrtov ioTiv els jSpa^u ovvr)ypLev7f 
/cat KaOapov, r/ 8e crKeSaaTrj nepl to, aci/xara /cat 
7T€pi7r\avr)s to aloOrjTov irapiox^v, €Tt to fxev dotb- 

fiaTOV 7T€paTOS OLK€LOV t TO §6 CTCO/Za TTj fJL€V vArf 

airtipov /cat doptOTOv alodrjTov 8e yiyv6[X€vov r> orav 

E Opiodjj jJL€TOxfj TOV VOTJTOV, €TL, Ka6a7T€p avTtov 

tcov alodrjTtov exaoTov elttovas ex €t nAeiovs Kal 
OKids /cat et'ScuAa /cat oAcos a</>' ivos 7rapaoety/xa- 
T09 7ra/Lt7ToAAa fiifjirffiaTa yiyveoOat /cat <f>vaei /cat 
T€ 'x v 7? Swarov £otlv, ovtcos dvdyKrj to. ivTavOa 
tcov e/c€t 7rA^0€t Siacpepetv /card rov nAdVcova 
7Tapa8elyfjLaTa /cat tSe'as rd vo7?Ta 6 tcov alodrjTtov 
cooirep etKOVOJV fj ifJL(f)do€cov VTroTiBefievov . 7 eVt 8 
rcov etScov 77 vorjcris (• vor\oiv S') 9 e£ dcpaipeaews 

1 E, B ; ra TfxrjfiaTa -X, J, g, €, n. 

2 E, B ; €T€/xve -X, J, G, e, n. 

3 OVV7}flfl€V7f -€. 

* rjj uA?7 ^t*j> -Benseler (but c/*. Bolkestein, Adversaria, 
pp. 98-99 and p. 105). 

5 ytyverat fiovov -Bernardakis (but cf. Zte Exilio 599 b-c 
and Wyttenbach, Animadversiones on 40 d). 

6 Stephanus ; vorjfiara -mss. 

7 \)TTOTidz\JvLvu}v -J, g. 8 en -Leonicus ; ev -mss. 

• H. C. ; 7) vo-qais 4£ -mss. ; rrjv vorjviv e'f -Leonicus ; 
vorjmv £( -Stephanus. 

a Cf. the argument of Pseudo-Brontinus, /aciJov . . . to 
hiavoarov rw voarw, quoted and commented upon by Iambli- 
chus, De Coram, Math, Scientia, pp. 34, 20-35, 26 (Festa). 

6 This terminology comes from Timaeus 35 a 1-6 and 37 a 
5-6. Cf. De An. Proc. in Timaeo 1012 b, 1014 o, and 1022 



ments ? And which of the segments is larger, the 
intelligible or the perceptible ? For he has not made 
it clear himself. 

On the face of it the perceptible segment would 
seem to be larger, for the indivisible and invariably 
identical being of the intelligibles is narrowly and 
purely concentrated but the perceptible segment was 
provided by the dispersed and erratic being of 
bodies. 6 Moreover, incorporeality is proper to 
limit, whereas body, while in matter it is unlimited 
and indefinite, becomes perceptible whenever it is 
bounded by virtue of participation in the intelligible. d 
Moreover, just as each of the perceptibles them- 
selves has a multiplicity of semblances and shadows 
and images and as generally both in nature and in 
art it is possible for numerous copies to come from a 
single pattern, so the things of this world must sur- 
pass in number the things of that world according to 
Plato's supposition that the intelligibles are patterns, 
that is ideas, of which the perceptibles are as sem- 
blances or reflections. 6 Moreover, the ideas are the 
objects of intellection f <(; and intellection) he in- 

e-f ; De Defectu Orac. 428 b and 430 f ; and further with -q 
aK€&aoT7) . . . Kal irepiirXavrjs De An. Proc. in Timaeo 1023 c 
and 1024 a, Quaest. Conviv. 718 d and 719 e. 

c Cf. De Comm. Not. 1080 e (to 8e ncpas oa>fia ovk Zotlv). 

d See 1001 b supra and note /there but especially De An. 
Proc. in Timaeo 1013 c (rfjs ficv vXrjs to fAeroxfj • ♦ • tov 

VOTjTOV [iOpifxjoOtV €V6VS OLTTTOV KO.I OpdTOV ioTlv). 

e Cf. Areius Didymus, Epitomes Frag. Phys. 1 (Dox. 
Graeci, p. 477 a 5-16 and b 4-12) =Eusebius, Praep. Evang. 
xi, 23, 3-4 and Albinus, Epitome xii, 1 (Louis) =pp. 166, 37- 
167, 5 (Hermann). 

/ Republic 51 1 d 8 ; cf. Timaeus 52 a 1-4 and 28 a 1-2 with 
Philebus 62 a 2-5, and n.b. Republic 534 a, where vorjms 
refers to the two upper segments of the line together. 



(1001) kclI TrepiKoirrjs 1 aa>fiaros eVdyet, rfj rcjv jiadrj^d- 
r<x)v % rdget KaTa/}ij3d£ojv ano rrjs d/ufytfjTiKTjs' em 
yecofAerplaVj efra fierd ravrrjv €tt* darpoXoyiav, 
P em ndaais Se ttjv apfioviKTjv ridels' yiyverai yap 
ra p,€V z yea>fJi€Tpovix€va, rov rroaov [xdyeQos rrpoa- 
Xafiovros 4 ' ra Se areped, rov fxeyedovs fiddos' 
ra S* dcrrpoXoyovfi€va, rod areptov Kivrjaw ra 
Se dpfioviKa, rto Kivovfievcp acofiart (frcovfjs irpoo- 
yevopL€vqs- odev d<j>aipovvres <f>(x)V7]v fiev ra>v ki- 
vovfjLtvajv Kivrjaw Se rcjv arepedv fiddos Se ra>v 
1002 €7Ti7Te8(x)V, fxeyeOos Se tcov 7rooa)V, eV avrals ye- 
vrjaofxeda rals vot)rals iSe'cus, ouSe/ziav 8iacf>opdv 
exoucrcus 5 irpos dAA^Aas /card ro eV /cat [xovdSa 6 
voovfi€v(aisy . 7 ov yap ttol€l fiovas dpidfiov, av 

1 TTcpioKoiTTJs -J, g. 2 Leonicus ; fjLaOrjT&v -mss. 

3 ytyverat fiev yap to. yecofierpovfieva -J, g. 

4 TrpoXapovTos - J • 6 E*.B, e ; ixovaas -X, J, g, n. 
e /tovaoa -H. C. ; fiovov -mss. ; [/cat] /xovov -Bury. 

7 Pohlenz ; voovfxev -X, E, B, c, n ; omitted by J, g ; 
voov^ievov -Diibner. 

a The course of studies in Republic 525 b 3 — 531 d 6 is 
meant. According to Plato (Republic 531 d 7 — 535 a 2) the 
whole of this is a progressive course of training leading up to 
dialectic, the method which alone reveals the ideas ; but 
KaTaj8i0a£o>v here implies that it is instead a graduated descent 
and departure from the ideas, and hence it is inferred that 
graduated abstraction in the reverse order (cf. 5Bev a<f>aipovv- 
res . . . [1001 r infra]) will bring one to the ideas them- 

b Because of ra oe are pea infra and Republic 528 a 6-e 2 
it has been thought that stereometry must have been men- 
tioned after yectfierpiav, but the latter by itself could have 
been meant to include both plane and solid geometry (cf. 
Non Posse Suaviter Vivi 1093 d and Moralia vii, p. 113, 
11-14 [Bernardakis] =vii, p. 90, 11-14 [Sandbach] ; Proclus, 
In Primum Euclidis El. Lib., p. 39, 8-10 [Friedlein]). 

c With this use of fieyedos for extension in a single plane 


troduces as a result of abstraction or lopping away 
of body when in the order of studies he leads down a 
from arithmetic to geometry and then after this b to 
astronomy and crowns all with the theory of har- 
mony, for the objects of geometry are the result 
when quantity has taken on extension, c the solids 
when extension has taken on depth, the objects of 
astronomy when solid body has taken on motion, 
and the objects of harmonics when sound has been 
added to the body in motion. Hence by abstracting 
sound from the things in motion and motion from the 
solids and depth from the planes and extension from 
the quantities we shall arrive at the intelligible ideas 
themselves/* which do not differ from one another 
at all when conceived in respect of their singularity 
and unity. 6 For unity does not produce number un- 

cf Sextus, Adv. Math, vii, 73 ( = Gorgias, frag. B 3 [D.-K.]), 
where or<3/ia, characterized as having three dimensions, is dis- 
tinguished from fxcyedos ; Aristotle, Metaphysics 1053 a 25- 
26, where the particular examples of fieyedos are only htjkos 
and ttXoltos : and the definition of line as /Lie'yeflo? i<f>* o> 
hiaorarov (Proclus, In Primum Euclidis El. Lib., p. 97, 7-8 

d Cf. Albinus (Epitome x, 5 [Louis] =p. 165, 14-17 [Her- 
mann]) for god like the point conceived tear a<f>atp€<nv (also 
Clement, Stromata v, xi, 71, 2-3 ; vi, xi, 90, 4). Plato did 
not say or imply that the ideas can be reached by such a pro- 
cedure, though Aristotle contended that those who posited 
the ideas did so by an invalid extension of the kind of abstrac- 
tion legitimately used in mathematics (Physics 193 b 35 — 
194 a 7 ; cf. Cherniss, Aristotle's Criticism of Plato . . ., pp. 

e Cf. [Plutarch], De Placitis 877 b=Dox. Graeci, p. 282, 
17-25 (o yap vovs Kara fjiovdoa Oecopctrcu . . . ra yap ciotj raOra 
ndvra kclI yivr\ Kara. fiovdoas clot) ; Sextus, Adv. Math, x, 258 
(cKaoTTf tSc'a tear lolav fiev XafjkpavofACvrj ev ctvau Ae'ytrcu . . .) ; 
and Theon Smyrnaeus, p. 100, 4-8 (Hiller). 



(1002) fir) rrjs drretpov bvdbos aipyrai' Troirjaaoa 8e 
ovrws apiOfjiov, els anyf-ids elra ypct/x/xa? £k Se 1 
rovTcov els €7n<f>av€ias Kal fiddrj koX acofxara 2 
Trpoeivi koll acjofidriov TTOLorrjras iv irddeoi yiyvo- 
fievcov. ere r(bv piev vo7]ra>v z ev Kpirrjptov 6 vovs* 
Kal yap rj hidvota vovs eartv ev tois pbaOr^pLariKots 
wanep ev 4 Karourpois epL(f>aivopLeva>v b tqjv votjtcov. 
em Se rrjv rtov aaypidrojv yv<x>aiv vtto ttXtjOovs 
rrevre Svvdpbeis Kal Sia(j>opds alodrjTTjplcov rj (f>vais 
eSwKev rjpuv Kal ov rrdvra cfrwparai ravrais aAA' 
B eK<f>evyei TroXXd Sta 6 fiiKpor^ra 7 rrjv aladrjaiv. ere, 
woirep 8 rjjjLwv eKaarov cruvearcorog eK re rrjs 9 i/jv- 
)(fjs Kal rod ocofxaros puKpov eon to rjyepLoviKov 
Kal voepov ev iroWtp rep rrjs aapKos oyKco KeKpvp- 

1 8e -omitted by B ; three points superscript over Se ~E. 


4 eV -omitted by B. 

5 B, E 2 (e^ superscript) ; eK^aivofievcov -all other mss. 

6 els -J ; 8ca -all other mss. (g over erasure). 

7 fiaKporrjra -J, B ; fiLKporrjTa -all other mss. (p, L oyer 
erasure ~g). 

8 In, wo-rtep -Wyttenbach ; iv <Z> Kaiirep -mss. ; e V <L Kal 
cjo-nep -Nogarola. 9 rrjs -omitted by Jri. 

a Cf De An. Proc. in Timaeo 1012 e and De Defect u Orar, 
428 e— 429 b; Aristotle, Metaphysics 1081 a 14-15. 1088 b 
28-35, and 1091 a 4-5. For the further derivation of points, 
lines, etc. which follows cf, Theophrastus, Metaphysics 6 a 
23-k 5 ; Alexander Polyhistor in Diogenes Laertius, viii, 25 ; 
Sextus, Adv. Math, x, 276-283 and Pyrrh. Hyp. iii, 153-154. 

6 Cf. TTOLorrjra Kal ^pcoctv . . . iv rtevrdhi (Nicomachus in 
Iamblichus, Theolog. Arith. y p. 74, 11-12 [De Falco]) and Tte- 
7Totco)ueVoj be ouiiiari TrefnTrds (Proclus, In Platonls Timafum 
iii, p. 382, 15 and ii, p. 270, 8 [Diehl]). 

c Cf. Quaest. Conviv. 718 e (ndat p.ev ovv toZs xaAoufievoLS 
fiaOrjiAaoiv wanep . . . KaTOirrpoLS ipL<f>alverai ttjs to>v votjtcov 
aXrjdeias "wq Kal eiScoXa) ; Syrianus, Metaph., p. 82, 22-25 ; 


less it comes into contact with the unlimited dyad ; 
and, when it has thus produced number, a it passes 
on into points and then lines and from these into 
surfaces and depths and bodies and qualities b of 
bodies in process of modification. Moreover, of the 
intelligibles there is a single criterion, the intelli- 
gence, for thought too is intelligence concerning the 
intelligibles that are reflected in the mathematical 
objects as in mirrors. For the cognition of bodies, 
however, nature, impelled by their multiplicity, gave 
us five faculties and distinctive sense-organs ; and 
these do not detect all bodies, but many by reason 
of their minuteness elude sense-perception. More- 
over, just as in each of us, whose constituent parts 
are soul and body, the ruling and intellectual faculty 
is small, buried in the mass of flesh which is large,** 

Proclus, In Primum Euclidis El. Lib., p. 4, 18-24 and p. 11, 
5-7 (Friedlein) ; Anon. Proleg. to Platonic Philosophy viii, 
11-12 (p. 37 [Westerink] — Platonis Dialogi vi, p. 214, 1 
[Hermann}) ; Scholia in Rem Publicam 509 d (vi, p. 350, 30 
and p. 351, 2 [Hermann]). This notion that the objects of 
Siavoia are images of the ideas in the highest segment of the 
line still persists (cf. A. Wedberg, Plato's Philosophy of 
Mathematics [Stockholm, 1955], p. 105), although Plato 
never says this but asserts rather that, while hiavoia employs 
as likenesses sensible figures in the third segment, its objects 
in this procedure are the idea of the square or the idea of the 
diagonal, which are vo-qra pera apxys (Republic 510 d 5 — 
511 a 1 and 511 d 2; cf. P. Shorey, Plato's Republic ii 
[L.C.L.], p. 116, note 6 and p. 20(5, note a). 

d The souls that rise from the body after death, dxXvv riva 
Kal t,6<f)ov a)G7T€p irq\6v airooeioyiivovs fie Genio Socratis 591 
f), are said to be rov oyKov evaraXcis (Be Sera Numinis 
\ "indicia 564 a, cf. Non Posse Suaviter Vivi 1105 d). Cf. 
. . . els rov oyxov tov ttclxvv rovrov ctWpiVovrcu (Proclus, In 
Platonis Timaeum, iii, p. 297, 23-24 [Diehl]) ; 6 SrjpLos ttXcov 
rj 6 dpxojv, Kal to orco/xa tt\£ov rj ^ ^XV (Maximus of Tyre, 
Philos. vii, ii d ==p. 77, 10-11 [Hobein]) ; and what Plutarch 



(1002) [jievov, ovto)S €t/cos" ^X eiv * v T( £ ^tclvtI TO VOTjTOV 
npos to aloOrjTov. 1 /cat yap oipX €l Ta vo-qra rtov 
acofJLariKcjv, apxys Sc rrdar]s ttXIov to ££ avTTjs /cat 

2. YlpoS 0€ TOVVaVTLOV eiTTOl T19 CtV TTptOTOV OTL 2 

ovyKplvovT€S (raf aladrjra tols votjtols rporrov 
tivol ra OvrjTa tols Oeiois* i^LOovfJL€v 6 yap deos 
€V tols votjtols* €7T€tra Travraxpv Sr]7rov to 
7T€piex°l J ' €V0V ^Xarrov eon tov rrepLexovTOS , r) 8e 


6 yap deos ttjv *l*vx*} v € ^ T0 ^ oov dels ota iravTos 
t €T€tve /cat ert e^ajOev* To, crcouaTa 8 avTjj nepie- 
KaXvifj€V, €OTi S' aopaTOS r) fax?) Kal iraoais Tat? 
aladrjcreow avaUrfhfros cos iv tols Nojjlols elpr]Tai. 
Sto /cat <f>0apTos rjfJicov els eKaoTOs ioTiv, 6 Se 

1 ttqlvtl to aladr\rov Kal to *>oi?toV -J» g. 

2 on -omitted by J, g. 3 < T d> -added by Stephanus. 

4 0€i'oi<? -Stephanus ; dtols -X, J, g, e, n ; voyrols -E, B. 

5 in Ztjtodev -Hubert (cf Timaeus 34 b 4) ; incgwOev -X, 
E, B, €9 n ; ZfaSev -J, g. 

6 to ooi/xa -Timaeus 34 b 4. 

says of the ^yc^oviKdV according to the Stoics (De Comm. 
Not. 1084 b). 

a For the argument from microcosm to macrocosm cf. 
Plato, Philebus 29 a— 30 a. 

b Cf Sextus, Adv. Math, x, 251-253. 

c See 1003 e infra (tt}s fxcv apxys iyyvTCpcj to cAottov) and 
cf, De Coram. Not. 1077 a-b and Quaest. Conviv. 636 a-h ; 
Aristotle, De Gen. Animal. 788 a 13-17 ; De Caelo 271 b 11- 
13 ; De Motu Animal. 701 b 24-28. 

d See De An. Proc. in Timaeo 1016 b, where god is identi- 
fied with to> vorjTwv . . . tou aplarov of Timaeus 37 a 1 (r/., 
however, for the meaning of votjtwv in this phrase of Plato's 
Cherniss, Aristotle's Criticism of Plato . . ., p. 605 and 
Gnomon, xxv [1953], p. 372, n. 1). 



such in the sum of things is likely to be the relation 
of the intelligible to the perceptible. For in fact 
the intelligibles are principles of the corporeals,^ 
and every principle is exceeded in number and size 
by that which comes from it. c 

2. To the contrary, however, one might say first 
that in comparing <(the) perceptibles with the in- 
telligibles we are in a way putting mortal things on 
a level with the divine, for god is among the intel- 
ligible entities.* 1 In the second place, what is en- 
compassed is in all cases surely less than that which 
encompasses ; and the nature of the sum of things 
encompasses the perceptible with the intelligible, 6 
for god, having placed the soul in the middle, 
stretched it out through everything and further en- 
veloped the bodies with it on the outside/ and the 
soul is invisible and imperceptible to all the senses, 
as has been said in the Laws. 9 That is also why 
each one of us is subject to destruction but the 

e Cf. Proclus, In Platonis Rem Publicam i, p. 289, 6-18 

f Timaeus 34 b 3-4- (where 8ia navros means through all 
the body of the universe, referred to by avrov which Plutarch 
omits after els ro /^ic'orov, as he changes to ad>fia in b 4 to ra 
ocofjLdTa [cf. 34 b 2]) ; cf. De An. Proc. in Tirnaeo 1023 a 

9 Laics 898 e 1-2, where avaiaB'qrov ndoais tov aa>fjiaTos 
alaOr/aem is followed by vorjrov S* elvau (for the meaning of 
which cf. Gnomon, xxv [1953], p. 372, n. 1). The possible 
influence of this passage upon Plutarch's treatment of the 
soul as " intelligible " and upon the doxographical statements 
that Plato held the soul to be ovaia vo-qrrj ([Plutarch], De 
Placitis 898 c=Dox. Graeci, p. 386 a 16 ; cf p. 386 1 5 [Theo- 
doretus and Nemesius]) is overlooked by H. Dorrie, who 
asserts " Niemals bezeichnet Platon die Seele als vo^rov . . ." 
[Porphyria** " Symmikta Zetemata" [Miinchen, 1959], p. 



(1002) KocfJios ov (f>0aprja6fi€vos' rjficov /xeV yap e/ca'oroi/ 1 

T1JV ^OJTLKTjV OVVapUV €VTOS 7T€/H€X€l TO 6vrjTO€l- 

8es /cat SiaAvrov, €V 8e ra> kogjxu) rovvavrtov vtto 
rrjs KvpiiDTtpas dpxqs 2, /cat Kara ravra (bcravrtDS 
ixovvrjs del acp^erat to oxo/zaTt/cov iv fieatp rrepi- 
e^o/ieyov. /cat pur]v dfiepes ye 3 Xeyerai /cat djie- 
piorov to /xev Go)fjia pLiKpoTTjTi, to §' daa>/xaTOV 
D /cat vorpov d)$ drrXovv /cat eiXiKpives /cat Kadapov 
andorjs irepoTrjTOS* /cat oia<f>opas. /cat aAAa>9 et>- 

^0€S* €CTTt TOt? OCOpLOLTlKols T€KfiaLp€Cr9ai 7T€pl TWV 

daajfjidrcov, to yovv vvv dfiepes \xkv /caAetTat 
/cat dpLcpLGTOV dfxa Se iravTa^ov €P€GTTjk€ /cat 
ovSev avTo€ b Trjg ocKovfievrjg fi€po$ Q eprj/xov cgtiv, 
dAAa /cat TrdOrj rrdvTa kqI rrpd^eis <j)9opai t€ 
7rdcrat /cat yeveaets at 7 u7ro toV kogiiov* iv tw 

VUV 7T€pi€XOVTat. KplTTjpiOV §€ TOU WnTOU 9 fJLOVOV 

eoTtv o vov9, co9 <f>u)Tos oifjis, Sta d^Ao'T^Ta /cat 

1 €k6.otov -Stephanus ; eVaaros -mss. ; cKaara) -Nogarola ; 
tKaorois -Bernardakis. 

2 apxvs -omitted by J, g. 

3 re - J ; omitted by g. 

4 irepor-QTos -Apelt (Philologus, lxii [1903], p. 287) ; ot€- 
peonjTos -mss. 

5 avrov -X, E, B, c, n ; T t -J, g. 

6 pepos -omitted by g. 

7 at -E, B ; Kal -X, J, g, €, n. 

8 rov Koapcov -J» g 2 (t koctjli -g 1 ). 

9 tov vo-qrov -with these words begin a, A, j3, Bonon. 
C 3635, Voss. 16, Escorial T-ll-5 (see app. crit. 999 c supra 
[title]) ; also the first words on folio 606 recto of E, where 
above them stands erased the title : Aft TrXaTwviKa ^-qrrj- 
jxara cov ovx evpedrj r) apx?)- 

a This reason why the universe will never be destroyed is 
not that which is given in the Timaeus (41 a 7-h 6 ; cf. Plu- 
tarch, Quaest. Conviv, 720 b [6 Oeos • . . eVoiTjcre Kal ttolcl Kal 


universe is not going to be destroyed, for in our case 
what is subject to mortality and dissolution encom- 
passes the vital force that each one has within, 
whereas in the universe on the contrary what is cor- 
poreal is for ever preserved by the more sovereign 
and invariably identical principle, in the middle of 
which it is encompassed. Moreover, body is said 
to be without parts and indivisible because of 
minuteness but the incorporeal and intelligible 
because of its simplicity and purity and freedom 
from all diversity and difference. 6 And, besides, it 
is silly to judge of things incorporeal from things 
corporeal. At any rate, the now, while it is said to 
be without parts and indivisible, is present every- 
where simultaneously , d and no part of the whole 
world is devoid of it ; but all incidents and actions, 
all cessations and commencements of being under 
heaven e are encompassed in the now. It is because 
of the simplicity and similarity of the intelligible, 
however, that its sole criterion is the intelligence as 

(frvXarrei olcl navros • • • rov koo/jlov]) but may be an inference 
drawn from Timaeus 36 e 2-5. 

6 This is meant as a reply to the argument in 1001 D supra 
(rj yap afiepioTos ovala . . . €ls ftpa-X^ avvrjyfievr) /cat KaOapov 
. . .) ; cf. De An. Proc. in Timaeo 1022 e (chap. 21 init.). For 
the combination ircpoT^g koX &ia<f>opd cf. De Virtute Moral i 
446 e (cited by Apelt) ; De An. Proc. in Timaeo 1015 e-f, 
1026 a and c ; De Comm. Not. 1083 e ; Numa xvii, 2 (71 c). 

c Cf. Aristotle, Physics 233 b 33—234. a 24 and Plutarch's 
criticism of the Stoics, De Comm. Not. 1081 c. 

d Cf. Plato, Par men ides 131 b 3-5 (. . . rjfMepa /uta koX rj clvtt) 
ovaa voXXaxov d/ua eort . . . ) ; Aristotle, Physics 218 b 13 and 
220 b 5-6 (o xpovos • ♦ • kclI 6 clvtos 8e iravraxov a/ia). 

e Cf. v7to rov ovpavov in Timaeus 23 c 7-d 1 ; and for 
Kovfios in this sense cf. Isocrates, Panegyricus 179 ; Poly- 
bius, xii, 25, 7 (Timaeus) ; Sextus, Adv. Math, x, 174-175. 



(1002) ofioiorrjTa* ra 8z awpcara, noXAds 8ia<f>opds I- 
\ovra Kal dvofjLOioTqras, dXXa aXAois 1 Kpcrrjpcocs 
E wcnrcp opydvois dXloKeadai Trl(f>VK€V. dXXd (irjv 
ovSe rfjs 2 iv rjjjLiv vorjrfjs Kal voepas 8vvdp,€u)s 
Kara<f>povov(JW 6p0ii>s 9 ttoXXtj yap ovoa Kal fieydXr] 
irepUari navros rod aiaftrjTou /cat ^XP l ™ v ^ € ^ v 
i^iKvelrai. to 8e fxeytarov avros iv 2i>/u7roata» 
SihdaKOjv ttcos Set 3 rot? ipwriKols xPV (J ^ aL » r L€r ~ 
dyovra rrjv $vxr)v oltto rG>v alod-qrcbv /caAaw 4 irrl 
rd vorjrd, irapeyyva p,rjT€ od)jxar6s twos pxyr 
imrrjSevpLaTos prfyr emcrrqiJLrjs /caAAet /xtdV vtto- 
reTa^^at /cat 8ovXev€iv, dXX airooravra rrjs rrepl 
ravra puKpoXoytas inl ro ttoXv rod KaXov ireXa- 
yos Tpeneadai. 


Tt hrjTTore* ttjv ifwx^ ^ €L TTpecFfivrepav drrofial- 
vojv rod owpLaros alrlav re rfjs ckcIvov yevtoeojs 

1 aAAots aAAa-J (corrected by J 4 ), g, Bonon. C 3635, Yoss. 
16, Escorial T-ll-5. 

2 rrjs -omitted by J, g. 
8 ^ -a 1 , e. 

* koXwv -omitted by J (added in margin -J 4 ), g. 

5 ft^Se/ua? -Escorial T-l 1-5. 

6 ri hrj7TOT€ -with these words begin y, Tolet. 51, 5 (cf. 
Class. Quart., xxi [1927], p. 167), Laurent. 80, 5 and 80, 22. 

This answers the argument in 1002 a supra (hi rd>v ^€v 
vorjTcov cv KpiTrjpiov . . .) ; and, as the subsequent words show, 
Std arr\6rr\Ta Kal ofioiorrjTa refers to the homogeneity of the 
intelligible (cf. Adv. Colotem 1114 n [. . . ofioioTrjTi -npos avro 
Kal tw pi) Segeotfai Sicu^opdv . . .]) and not to a similarity of 
intelligence and intelligible or of vision and light. 

6 The vovs is the vocpa. Svvapus in us (cf. 1002 b supra : to 



that of light is vision a ; but, since bodies have many 
differences and dissimilarities, different ones are 
naturally apprehended by different criteria, as it 
were by different instruments. But furthermore it 
is not right of them to be disdainful even of the in- 
telligible and intellectual faculty b in us men, for 
because it is ample and stout it transcends all that 
is perceptible and reaches as far as things divine. c 
The most important point, however, is that, when 
in the Symposium d Plato explains how one must 
manage the matter of love by diverting the soul 
from the beautiful objects that are perceptible to 
those that are intelligible, his own injunction is 
not to subjugate oneself and play the slave to the 
beauty of a particular body or practice or of a single 
science but to desist from petty concern about these 
things and turn to the vast sea of the beautiful. e 


Whyevek, when he declares that the soul is always 
senior to the body and the cause and origin of the 

rjyefMovLKov /cat vocpov), and Plutarch thinks that he has the 
authority of Plato for treating this itself as a vot\t6v (see note 
g on 1002 c supra). There is therefore no reason to read into 
this passage the distinction between vo-qT-q and vocpd for 
which it is cited by H. Dome (Porphyrias " Symviikta 
Zetemata" p. 189, n. 5). 

c Cf. Philo Jud., Be Opificio Mundi 70-7 1 (i, pp. 23, 18-24, 
] [Cohn]) and R. M. Jones, Class. Phil., xxi (1926), pp. 101 ft'. 

d Symposium 210 u. 

e Plutarch conveniently cuts short his paraphrase of the 
passage, for the end and purpose of the whole progress in 
the Symposium is the cmonj/nj jj.ta of the idea of beauty (210 
d6 — 211 i) I ; cf. Albinus, Epitome v, 5 [Louis] =p. 157, 
11-18 [Hermann] and x, (i [Louis] =p. 165, 24-29 [Hermann]). 



(1002 > „ « » ' 'l ,A < • « ' fl / . 

p /cat CLpxy v > ttoAiv cprjatv ovk av yeveouai ipvxvjv 

avev acofiaros ov8e vovv avev ifjvxrjs aAAa ijjv)(r)v 

fiev iv 1 acofxart vovv S' iv rrj ipvxfj; 8d£et yap to 

acu/xa /cat etvat /cat [jltj elvai, avwTrdpxov a/xa ttJ 

</ft>X?? /<a ^ yevva)fjL€vov vtto rfjs fax^s* 

1003 H 2 to 7T0XX0LKLS v(f>* r)(JL<jL>v Aeyofjuevov a\r)des 

eoTiv; rj puev yap avovs ^XV KaL T ° d(iop<f>ov 

acjfjca avvv7Trjpxov z dAArjAois del /cat ovSeTepov 

avT(hv yeveaiv eax ev °v& dpxrfv' errel Se rj ifivxr] 

vov fjL€TeAa^e /cat dpfiovias /cat yevopievr] Sid ov\i- 

(fxovlas ejjbfipcov* {leTafioArjs atrta yeyove 5 ttj vArj 

/cat KpaT-qoaoa rat? auras' 6 Kivr\aeoi Tas eKeivqs 1 

€7T€CT77aaaTO /cat e7TecrTpei/jev, 6 ovto) to Utopia TOV 

1 iv -omitted by J 1 , g. 

2 if -a. f 

3 avvvTrdpxovra (ra superscript over ov) -J 1 ; ovvwnapxov 
-Voss. 16; ovvvirdpxovoLv -Escorial T-ll-5. 

4 €fi(f)pov -J 1 . 

5 air La yiyovt -omitted by J 1 , g. 

6 Kparrjcras aureus rats "J 1 * g- 

7 iKetvas -Escorial T-ll-5. 

8 eW(7Tp€0ai> -J. 

Plato, Timaeus 34 b 10—35 a 1 and Laws 896 a 5-c 8 
(with 892 a 2-c 6) ; see D<? ^rc. Proc. in Timaeo 1013 e-f 
and 1016 a-b (where Timaeus 34 b 10 — 35 a 1 is quoted). 

b Timaeus 30 b 3-5 (cf. Albinus, Epitome xiv, 4 [Louis] =p, 
170, 2-3 [Hermann] : Igojs ovx olov re ovtos vov dvev $ux'rjs 
vTToarrjvai). Here as elsewhere Plato does say that vovs can- 
not exist apart from faxy (Timaeus 46 d 5-6, Sophist 249 a 
4-8, Philebus 30 c 9-10 ; cf. Cherniss, Aristotle's Criticism of 
Plato . . ., pp. 606-607) but neither here nor anywhere that 
soul cannot exist without body. This is simply a false infer- 
ence from the statement that the demiurge did put soul into 
the body of the universe. 

See note c on De Comm. Not. 1075 f infra. 

d With what follows cf. Question II, 2 ( 100 1 b-c) supra and 
De An. Proc. in Timaeo 1014 b-e and 1017 a-b. In those 



latter's generation, does he again say that soul could 
not have come to be without body or intelligence 
without soul either, 6 but soul in body and intelligence 
in soul ? For it would seem that the body both 
exists and does not exist if it is at once coexistent 
with the soul and being generated by the soul. 

Or c is that right which we frequently assert ? d 
For soul without intelligence e and amorphous body f 
were always coexistent with each other, and neither 
of them had generation or origin ; but, when the 
soul had partaken of intelligence and concord g and, 
grown rational through consonance, had become a 
cause of change for matter and had attracted and 
converted the motions of the latter h by having 
dominated them with its own motions, 1 ' this is the 

passages god or the demiurge, who is not mentioned in the 
present Question, is the subject of statements which. here have 
for subject instead soul, i.e. intelligent soul ; but this latter 
according to 1001 c supra is not merely the work of god but 
also a part of him. 

e Cf. Timaeus 44 a 8 : /car' dpxds re dvovs fax?) y ly v€rat, 
said, however, of the particular human soul when it enters the 

1 Timaeus 50 d 7 and 51 a 7 (see De An. Proc. in Timaeo 
1014 P [to tj]v v\r]v dei fi€v dfjLop(f)Ov /cat doxy p^-r lot ov ^ 7r ' clvtov 
X4yco$cu . . .] and cf. Timaeus Locrus 94 a [dfxop<f>ov Se KaQ y 
avrdv /cat doxy pidr lot ov]). 

9 See note a on 1001 c supra. 

h According to Plutarch's own doctrine these could be 
only motions induced by disorderly soul not yet grown 
rational, for amorphous matter of itself would be SwdpLtajs 
oiVetas" eprrjiiov, dpyov e£ avrov, dfioipos air las dirdo^s {De An. 
Proc. in Timaeo 1014 f — 1015 a, cf. J 015 e). 

* See the similar language used of the effect of vovs on 
i/jvxv in De An. Proc. in Timaeo 1024 n : lyyevo^vos ok rfj 
i/jvxfj Kal Kparrjoas ct's iavrov lirioTpifyzi . . . (cf, Thevenaz, 
IS A me du Monde, pp. 71-72) ; and cf. Timaeus 42 c 4-d 2 
with Cornford's note ad loc. (Plato's Cosmology, p. 144, n. 2). 



(1003) KOGfiov ydvtaw eo^v vrro rrjs *pvxr}s y Kal Kara- 
cr X 7 ?/ xaTt £°/ x€ * ,0V Kai wvo/jLOioviievov. ov yap i£ av- 
rfjs rj ^xh T V V T °v voofiaTOS ehr]fxiovpy€i (j>vaiv 
oi58' €K rod /MY) ovros, dAA' €K acofiaros araKrov 
kcu dax^^cLTlarov aa>/xa rerayfievov drreipyd' 

B OOLTO 1 Kdl 7T€107]VIOV. 2 tb(J7T€p OVV, €l (JXXIT) TIS dti 

rrjv rod aire pharos 3 SvvapLiv elvai pera acofia- 
ros* yeyovevai fxei/TOi to atopa rfjs crvKrjs 77 5 rrjs 6 
eXaias vtto OTrepjxaros, ovSev ipel hid^oovov 1 (avro 
yap to atofjLa, kwt]0€gjs avrto Kal fxerafioArjs vtto 
rov arrepfxaros iyyevopbevrjg, ecfrv roiovro /cat St- 
e^XdoTrjaev) ovtcos r) apiop<j>os vXrj Kal aopioros 
vtto rrjs i/jvxrjs* ivovorjs* ax^Jl^aTiodeioa {lopcfrrjv 
€cr)(€ TotavTTjv Kal Siddeoiv. 


1 . Ata Ti, tcov fiev evdvypd^icov tcov 0€ kvkXi- 
ko)v craJ/zdVaw /cat oy?\p,dTUjv ovtojv, tols tcov evdv- 
ypdfjLfjLcov 10 dpxds 11 eAa/?€ to loooKeXes Tpiytovov 
C Kal to crKaXrjvov, oov to fiev tov Kiifiov oweemjae 
yrjs otoix&ov ovra to he OKaXr/vov tt\v t€ jrupa- 
/zt'Sa /cat to oKTaeSpov /cat to tlKoodehpov , to /xev 

1 aTTcpydaaTo -X. 

2 Kal TT€iB'qvLov OL7T€LpydaaTO -E 1 . 

3 GCjfiaTos -y> 

4 /tx€Ta rod croj/Ltaros -Voss. 16, Escorial T-ll-5. 

5 r) -omitted by g. 

8 Kal -Escorial T-ll-5. 

7 hia<j>4p€iv -J 1 ; hiafepov -g (tpov over erasure) ; hid<f>opov 
(op superscript over wv) -B 1 . 

8 vtto -rijs tfoxys -omitted by X. 

9 ivovaas -Escorial T-l 1-5. 

10 iGiv 8c kvkXikcov . . . tcov €vdvypdp.p.a)v -omitted by J 1 , g. 

11 aprfv-J 1 , g. 


way in which the body of the universe got generated 
by the soul, in being fashioned by it and assimilated. 
For it was not out of itself that the soul fabricated 
the nature of body or out of w r hat is non-existent 
either, but out of disorderly a and shapeless body it 
produced a well-ordered and disciplined b one. There- 
fore, just as there w r ould be nothing inconsistent in 
the assertion if one should say that the potency of 
the seed is always associated with body and yet the 
body of the fig or the olive has come to be by the 
agency of seed (for the body itself had such and 
such a growth and germination because by the 
agency of the seed motion and change arose in it c ), 
so the amorphous and indefinite matter got such and 
such a shape and disposition when it was fashioned 
by the soul existing within it. 


1. Some bodies and figures being rectilinear and 
others circular,** what was his reason for taking as 
the principles of the rectilinear figures the isosceles 
triangle and the scalene, the former of which pro- 
duced the cube as element of earth while the scalene 
produced the pyramid and the octahedron and the 

a Cf. Quaest. Conviv. 720 b (17 yJkv vXrj tojv inroKCLfievcov 
araKTorarov ecrrt . . .) and De An. Proc. in Timaeo 1024 a-b 
(outc yap to aladnrov ciAi^fCt rd^ais • • •)• 

6 Cf. De An. Proc. in Timaeo 1029 e for the word, there 
applied to the soul ; but for the notion here cf, Timaeus 48 a 
2-5 and 56 c 5-6. 

e Cf. [Plutarch], De Placitis 905 a =Dox. Graeci, p. 417 a 

d Cf. Plato, Parmenides 137 d 8-e 6 and 145 b 3-5 ; 
Aristotle, De Caelo 286 b 13-16 ; Proclus, In Primum 
Euclidis EL Lib., p. 144, 10-18 (Friedlein). 



(1003) rrvpos OTrep/ia to S' depos to Se vScltos yevopbtvov, 
to 8e Ttov kvkAiklov 1 oAtos TrapfJKC, kclitoi fivrjoOels 

TOV G(j)CUpO€t,8oVS €V OLS <f)7]Ol TCOV KCLT7)pldlJL7)fA€Va)V 

a^/xarcov e/caarov oojfxaTos irepi^povs tls loa 
8iav€fjLrjTCK0V elvac; 

UoTepov, a>s" vnovoovoiv evcoi, 2 to 8co8€Kae8pov 
Ttp ocj)aipoei8ei irpooeveipLGv, ehrcov otl tovtoj 3 
TTpos Trjv tov TravTos 6 Oeds KaT^pr\oaTo <f)vaiv 
ihceivo 8ial > cpypa<f>tov ; /cat yap fidXtOTa tco TrXrjdei 


D evOvTTjTa Siatfivyov* evKapLireg ecrrt, /cat tjj 7T€pi- 

Taoei Kaddrrep at SojSeKaoKVTOi ocf>alpai kvkAo- 

Tepes yiyvcTOLi /cat TTtpiAiqTTTiKov* * e^et yap et/coat 

ywvlas GTepeds, tov eKaoTr^v €Trc7re8oc rtepiiypvaiv 

d/xjSAetai Tpeis' e/caoTT? yap opdrjs eart /cat TrepLTTTOV 

fjiopLOV ovvrjp/AOOTaL 8e /cat ov/x7T€7Tr)y€v ix StoSe/ca 

rrevTay tovcov 6 looytovitov /cat loorrAevptov, cov c/ca- 

1 kvkXcov -Escorial T-ll-5. 

2 erepoi (vl superscript over re) -e- 3 rovro -Voss. 1(5. 

4 hU<t>vyev -J 1 , g ; §ia<f>vy&v -Voss. 16 1 . 

5 TTapa\j)TTTiK6v -J 1 , g. 6 navraycovajv -J 1 . 

° Timaeus 53 c 4 — 55 c 4 and 55 d 7 — 56 b 6. For Plu- 
tarch's use of yrjs (jtolx^iov and 7ru/>os oTripna. in these lines 
c/. Timaeus 56 b 5 (crrotx^tov /cat atrip^a) with Cornford's 
note {Plato } s Cosmology, p. 223, n. 1). 

6 Aristotle (De Caelo 286 b 27-33) interprets this as sup- 
porting evidence for his thesis that the sphere is the primary 
solid figure. 

c Timaeus 55 a 3-4. Plato's words there are oAou Trepufyt- 

POVS 8iaV€fI7)TlK6v €LS IOCL pi€pr) KOI O/UOld, and oAou 7T€pi(f>€pOVS 

means " the whole circumference " of the sphere in which the 
tetrahedron is inscribed. At this point in the Timaeus only 
this, " the simplest solid figure," has been constructed, though 
what is said of its division of the sphere in which it is inscribed 
is undoubtedly meant to apply also to the four regular solids 
mentioned immediately thereafter. 


icosahedron, which became the seed of fire and of 
air and of water respectively/ 1 but for disregarding 
altogether the question of the circular figures, b even 
though he did mention the spherical in the passage 
where he says c that each of the figures enumerated 
has the property of dividing into equal parts an en- 
circling body ? 

Did he, as some surmise, associate the dodeca- 
hedron with what is spherical,** since he said e that 
god employed the former for the nature of the sum 
of things in tracing the design of this ? For, furthest 
withdrawn from straightness by the multitude of its 
elements f and obtuseness of its angles, it is flexible 
and like the balls that are made of twelve pieces of 
leather g by being distended becomes circular and 
circumscriptive,' 1 for it has twenty solid angles each 
of which is contained by three plane angles that are 
obtuse, since each consists of a right angle and a 
fifth i ; and it has been assembled and constructed 
out of twelve equiangular and equilateral pentagons,* 

d Cf " Timaeus Locrus " 98 e (to Se SojSexaeS/oov eUova 
tco ttolvtos eaTaaaTo, eyyiora o<j>alpas iov) and Philoponus, De 
Aeternitate Mundi xiii, 18 (pp. 536, 27-537, 2 [Rabe]). 

* Timaeus 55 c 4-6, more accurately quoted by Plutarch 
in De Defectu Orac. 430 b. 

f Cf. De Defectu Orac. 427 b (^iyiorov hk koX 7roXvfi€p€- 
ararov to ScDSexdcSpov) ; and for otoix&ov as here used (the 
ultimate constituent triangles) cf. Timaeus 54 d 6-7, 55 a 8, 
55 b 3-4, and 57 c 9. 

9 Cf. Plato, Phaedo 110 b 5-7 and Proclus, In Platonis 
Timaeum iii, p. 141, 19-24 (Diehl). 

h Cf De Defectu Orac. 428 d (tj 8c rod BcobeKacSpov <f>vois 

7T€pL\7]7TTLK7j TCOV aXXcOV Crj^/XCtTOJV OVGCL . . .). 

i Cf. Euclid, Elements xiii, Prop. 18, Lemma (iv, p. 340, 
6-7 [Heiberg]). 

' Cf. Euclid, Elements xi, Def. 28. 


(1003) arov 1 €K rpiaKovra rcbv irpcorcov OKaXrjvcov rpi- 

yCOVtoV OVV€OTT]K€' Sl6 Kdi SoK€l TOV ^OjhiaKOV 

dfia Kai tov evtavTov d7ro/xt/x€ia0cu rats Siavojials 
rwv fioipcjv 2 laapidfiocs ouaats. 3 

2. H Trporepov ian Kara (f>vcnv to evOv tov 

7T€pt(f>€povs, /xaAAoy 8e 6'Acos rrados ti ttjs evdelas 

E rj 7T€pi</>€prjs ; /ca/X7rrecr#at yap Acyerat to opdov 

/cat 6 kvkXos ypa<f>€Tai KtvTpco Kai Siacmj/xaTi • 

TOUTO §' ioTLV €v8eiaS T07TOS', 4 V<f> rjs Kai fJL€Tp€LTav 
TO yap 5 7T€pl€)(OV €K TOV [JL€OOV TTaVTa^od^V XoOV 

d(f>€OTrjK€. yevvaTai 0€ Kai Ktovos Kai tcvXtvhpos 
orr' evdvypapLfiajv , 6 fxkv Tpiyojvov 7repl* \xiav 
irXevpdv jxevovoav ttj eTepa TrXtvpa Kai ttj ftdoei 

7T€pi€V€)(96VTOS 6 §6 KvXivSpOS 7TapaXX7]XoypdjJLjjiOV 

TavTo tovto iradovTos. 1 en 8 ttjs [M€v dpxfjs ey- 
yvTepoj to eXaTTOv, iXax^OTrj 8e naoajv 9 r) evOela- 

TTJS ydp 7T€pi(f)€pOVS TO jJL€V (cVtO?) 10 €GTl KolXoV 

1 eVaa-ros -Escorial T-ll-5 1 . 2 fivpuav -J, g. 

3 outcds -Escorial T-ll-5. 4 Tvrros -X, e, n. 

5 yap -omitted by J 1 , g. 6 nepl -omitted by g. 

7 tt€7tov06tos -Escorial T-ll-5. 

8 In -Leonicus ; can -Escorial T-ll-5; tVei -all other 
mss. 9 TTadayv -X, a , A 1 , jS 1 , €, n. 

10 <€vros> -added here by Bernardakis (. . . koZXov <to 
£vt6s> -Leonicus). 

° This is erroneous (cf. Heath, Manual* pp. 177-178), and 
Plutarch seems to make Ammonius call attention to the fact 
in De Defectu Orac, 428 A (. . . to tov KaXov^ievov Soj&eKaeBpov 


owLoT-qaiv). Albinus in his Epitome xiii, 2 (p. 77 [Louis] = 
pp. 168, 37-169, 2 [Hermann]) says that each of the twelve 
pentagons is divided into five triangles and each of these 
consists of six triangles, but it should be observed that he 
does not state what kind of triangles these are. 

b Neither Plutarch here nor Albinus in his Epitome xiii, 2 



each of which consists of thirty of the primary scalene 
triangles, and this is why it seems to represent at 
once the zodiac and the year in that the divisions 
into parts are equal in number. 6 

2. Or is the straight naturally prior to the cir- 
cular c or rather the circular line simply a modifica- 
tion of the straight line ? For we do speak of the 
bending of what is straight d and the circle is de- 
scribed by a centre and a distance, this latter being 
the location of a straight line by which it is measured 
as well, 6 for what contains the circle is at all points 
equally removed from the middle. Also, both cone 
and cylinder are generated by rectilinear figures, the 
former when one side and the base of a triangle are 
rotated about the other side, which remains fixed, 
and the cylinder when this same thing happens to a 
parallelogram/ Moreover, what is lesser is nearer 
to the principle * ; but the straight line is the least 
of all lines,' 1 for the circular line has its {interior) 

(pp. 75-77 [Louis] =pp. 108, 34-169, 3 [Hermann]) refers to 
any relation between the zodiac and the dodecahedron other 
than the numerical similarity that both of them (and the year) 
consist of twelve parts, each of which consists of thirty parts. 

c Of. Proclus, In Primum Euclidis El. Lib., pp. 106, 20- 
107, 10 (Friedlein). 

d Cf Aristotle, De Incessu Animal. 708 b 22-21 and 
Meteorology 386 a 1-7. 

• Cf. Euclid, Elements i, Post. 3 and Proclus, In Primum 
Euclid is El. Lib., p. 185, 22-25 (Friedlein) : . . . hidarnua ok 
f) evOeia. oar) yap av avrrj Tvyxdvr) roaovro carat to arroar^/Lta 
tov Kevrpov irpos rrdvra rd fieprj ri)s Trcpifapelas. 

t Cf. Euclid, Elements xi, Defs. 18 and 21. 
See 1002 b supra and note c there. 

* Cf Archimedes, Opera Omnia iterum ed. J. L. Heiberg, 
i, p. 8, 3-4; Proclus, In Primum Euclidis El. Lib., p. 110, 
10-26 (Friedlein); Theon Smyrnaeus, pp. Ill, 22-112. 1 



(1003) Kvprov he to 1 eKros. en r&v oyrj^droiv ol 
apiOfiol Trporepoi, kcu yap rj fiovas rfjs oriyfjifjs' 
F ear i yap rj ariypLTj floras ev deoei. 2 Kal pLTjv rj 
fiovas rpiycovos eon* iras yap rpiyojvos dpiQjios 
oktolkis yevofievos Kal fiovdha TrpooAafitbv yiyve- 
rat rerpdyojvos' rovro he /cat 3 rfj jxovdhi gvjjl- 
jSe/J-q/ce 4, rrporepov ovv rov kvkXov to rpiyojvov el 
he rovro, Kal evOela rfjs rrepi^epovs- ere to aroi- 
yelov els 5 ovhev hiaipelrai ra>v ovviora\ievtov ei; 
avroVj rols S' dXXois 6 els to oroiyelov rj hidXv- 
1004 cris*. el 1 roivvv ro jiev rpiywvov els ovhev 7repi<f)e- 
pes hiaXverat, rov he kvkXov els reooapa 6 rpiyojva 

1 to -omitted by J 1 , g. 

2 ivdirojs -J 1 . 

3 koX -omitted by J 1 , g. 

4 iiova&i ov ovyL$£$r\K€ -g. 

5 ojj -J, g. 

7 6TL -J 1 , g. 8 CIS TO. T€TTapCL ~g. 

° Cf. Proclus, In Prinium Euclidis El. Lib., p. 106, 24,-25 
(Friedlein) ; [Aristotle], Mechanica 847 b 23—848 a 3. 

b Cf. Hero Alexandrinus, Def. a! (iv, p. 14, 13-19 [Hei- 
berg]) ; Theon Smyrnaeus, p. Ill, 14-16 (Hiller) ; Proclus, 
In Primum Euclidis El. Lib., p. 95, 21-26 (Friedlein) ; 
Aristotle, Topics 108 b 26-31 and Metaphysics 1016 b 24-31 
with Cherniss, Aristotle's Criticism of Plato . . ., pp. 131-132 
and note 322 on p. 397. Contrast 1002 a supra, where unity 
is said to produce numbers and then to pass on into points, 
lines, and figures. 

c The unit, being the apxv of number and not itself a 
number, is usually called " potentially triangular," 3 being the 
first triangular number as in De An. Proc. in Timaeo 1020 o 
(Theon Smyrnaeus, p. 33, 5-7 and p. 37, 15-19 [Miller] ; 
Nicomachus, A.rithmetica Introductio, pp. 88, 23-89, 5 
[Hoche] ; Iamblichus, In Nicomachi Arithmetic-am Intro- 
ductionem, p. 62, 2-5 [Pistelli]). For triangular numbers cf. 



concave and its exterior convex. a Moreover, 
numbers are prior to figures, for the unit is itself 
prior to the point because the point is a unit in 
position. 6 Now, the unit is triangular, for every 
triangular number multiplied by eight and with 
addition of a unit becomes a square number, and 
this is characteristic of the unit also. c The triangle, 
then, is prior to the circle d ; and, if so, the straight 
line too is prior to the circular. Moreover, the 
element is divided into none of the things that are 
compounded out of it, whereas the other things are 
subject to resolution into the element. If, then, the 
triangle is resolved into nothing that is circular, 
whereas the two diameters of the circle divide it into 

Conviv. 744 b (where 3 and 6 are the examples) ; 
Theon Smyrnaeus, p. 33, pp. 37, 7-38, 14, and p. 41, 3-8 
(Hiller) ; Nicomachus, Arithmetlca Introductio II, viii (pp. 

87, 22-89, 16 [Hoche]). The algebraic formula is n (* + 1 ) ; 

and 1 conforms to this, being half of the product of itself and 
2. The proposition that any triangular number multiplied 
by 8 becomes a square number when 1 is added is repeated by 
Iamblichus (In Nicomachi Arithmeticam Introductionem, 
p. 90, 18-19 [Pistelli]) but is not by him explicitly applied to 
the unit (cf. Heath, History i, p. 84 and ii, pp. 516-517 ; M. It. 
Cohen and I. E. Drabkin, A Source Book in Greek Science 
[New York, 1948], p. 9, n. 2). 

d This does not follow, for not only is the unit " square " as 
well as " triangular " (De E 391 a, Be Defectu Orac. 429 e ; 
Nicomachus, Arithmetlca Introduction p. 91, 4-5 [Hoche] ; 
Iamblichus, In Nicomachi Arithmeticam Introductionem, 
p. 60, 3-5 and p. 75, 11-13 [Pistelli]) but even its being tri- 
angular does not prove the triangle to be a unit prior to the 
circle, which can itself be regarded as analogous to the unit 
(Aristotle, De Caelo 286 b 33—287 a 2 ; Iamblichus, op. cit., 
p. 61, 6-24 and pp. 94, 27-95, 2 [Pistelli] ; Proclus, In Primum 
Euclidis El. Lib., pp. 146, 24-147, 5 and pp. 151, 20-152, 5 



(1004) rdfivovaw al 8vo Sidfierpoc, Trporepov av rfj tf>vo€L 
kolI aTOf)(eiwh€OT€pov etrj rod kvkXlkov 1 to evdv- 
ypafipbov. otl roivvv 7Tporjyovfji€vov fiev ion to 
evdvypapbfiov 2 to 8e kvkXlkov €7nyiyvopi€vov z kcu 
Gvpb^€^7]KOs avros 6 WXdrojv eveSet^aTO* tt)v yap 
yrjv 4 €K Kvflcov ovoTTjodfjLevos , cov ckootov 5 evOv- 
ypa/x/xot 6 7T€pL€)(ovoLV em<£av€icu, 7 o^aipoetSes au- 
ras' ytyovivai to a^^a 8 <f>Yjoi kol oTpoyyvXov. 
loot ov8ev eSei iroielv tcov 7T€pL<j)€pcov 18lov otol- 
X^° v > **> kou> toZs evdvypdfjLjjLOLS TTpos aXXiqXd ttcos 
ovvappLOTTOfievoLs 9 6 oxwicLnofios o$tos iTTiyiyve- 

o8at 7T€(f>VKeV. 
B 3. V ETt, €V0€la 10 fJL€V Tf T€ fJL€L^COV T) T€ fJLLKpO- 
T€pa T7]V aVTTJV €vdvT7)T(L 8iaT7)p€L } TO.S 8e TCOV 

XcoTepas 11 koX o<f>Lyyoji4vas ttj kvptott]tl fiaXXov 
opcofieVy av 8e fiel^ovs, dveLfievas' tora/zeroi yovv 


1 KVkXov -J 1 , g. 

2 on toiW ... to cvdvypcLfinov -omitted by J 1 , g, Escorial 
T-ll-5 1 . 

3 kvkXlkov iari yivoftcvov -J 1 , g; kvkXlkov emyevofievov 
-Escorial T-ll-5. 

4 yrjv -omitted by J 1 , g. 

5 €Kaaros -J 1 * g ; Ikcuxtch -€. 

6 €vdvypafifiov -J, g, Voss. 16. 7 em^cuVcrai -J, g. 

8 to ox'fjfxa ycyovevat -Escorial T-ll-5. 

9 avvapfioTTOfjicvos -3% g» Voss. 16 l . 

10 loTt yap cvflcta -J» g. ll Ka^nryXorepas -B, e. 

° Since the bases of the triangles into which the circle is 
divided remain arcs of a circle, the conclusion here drawn 



four triangles, the rectilinear would be naturally prior 
to the circular and more elementary than it. a 
Furthermore, that the rectilinear is antecedent and 
the circular supervenient and incidental was in- 
dicated by Plato himself, for after making the earth 
consist of cubes, 6 each of which is contained by 
rectilinear surfaces, he says that the shape of it has 
turned out to be spherical or round. 6 Consequently 
there was no need to postulate an element peculiar 
to circular figures if this configuration does naturally 
supervene upon rectilinears conjoined with one an- 
other in a particular way. 

3. Moreover, while a straight line, whatever its 
length, keeps the same straightness throughout, we 
see that the circumferences of circles are more 
curved, that is are more highly concentrated in their 
convexity, if they are smaller, and more relaxed, if 
they are larger. d At any rate, when set up on their 
convex circumference, some circles touch the under- 
does not follow from the argument, with which cf. Nico- 
machus, Aritknietica Introductio II, vii, 4 (p. 87, 7-19 
[Hoche]) and Simplicius, Be Caelo, pp. 613, 30-614, 10 on 
Aristotle, Be Caelo 303 a 31-b 1. 

b Tirnaeus 55 d 8 — 56 a 1. 

c Despite faoi this is not a quotation. In fact, in the 
Tirnaeus after 55 d 8 — 56 a 1 the sphericity of the earth is 
referred to only by implication in 62 d 12 — 63 a 3 (cf. Corn- 
ford, Plato's Cosmology, p. 263, notes 1 and 2 with Phaedo 
108 e 4 — 109 a 7 and 110 b 5-7). Misguided attempts have 
been made to deny that even these passages refer to the 
earth's sphericity (cf. Lustrum, IV [1959], Nos. 660-661 and 
V [1960], Nos. 1464 and 1465). 

d Cf. John Wallis, A Treatise of Angular Sections (Lon- 
don, 1684), p. 90 : "... the lesser circumference is more 
crooked. For it hath as much of curvity in a shorter length. 
And therefore ... it is more crooked intensively." 



(1004) oi 8e Kara ypafifirjv arrrovrac ra>v viroKetpiivoJv 
€7tltt€§o)V' ojct#' vttovo-^gcizv av ris evdzlas Kara 
fjuKpa 7To\Aas <ruvri0€[jL€vas l rrjv 7T€pt(f)€prj ypafifirjv 

4. °Opa 8e fir) ra>v fiev 2 ivravBa kvkXlkcov /cat 
<j(f>aipo€iSu)v ovSev iariv aTrrjKpifioojjLevov aAA' ivrd- 
aet 3 /cat rrepirdoei rcov evdvypdfXjjLcov rj puKporrjTL 
C twv fiopicov rrj9 Stacfropas Xavdavovaiqs eVt^atVerat 
ro orpoyyvXov /cat /cv/cAoetS/s-, oOev ovhe Kiveirai 
(f)vo€i rcov ivravOa acopidrcov iyKVKXitos ovSev dAA' 
€77 evdelas dnavra' ro 8 ovroos o<f>aipo€i8es ovk 
eanv aladrjrov oajfiaro^ dAAd rijs ifrvxrjs kcu rod 
vov Groix^ov s oh /cat rrjv KVKXo^oprjrtKrjv 4 Ktirq- 
oiv d>$ TTpoor)Kovoav Kara cf>voLV drrohihajoiv. 

1 g vvTeBeitxevas -Escori al T-ll-5. 

2 ubr-J\ g> Voss. 16, Bonon., Esoorial T-ll-5 ; omitted 
by all other mss. 

3 evrdocL -E, B, n, Escorial T-ll-5; ivarduet -all other 


4 KvK\o<f>opiK7)v -E, B, n ; KVKXo^op-qriKov -Escorial T-ll-5. 

This in fact has nothing to do with the preceding state- 
ment, for a circle however large will never touch the plane 
at a line unless both are material, and then it will do so 
however small it is (cf. Aristotle, Metaphysics 997 b 35 — 
998 a 4 and Alexander, Metaph., p. 200, 15-21). It does not 
then support the subsequent conclusion either, to which 
Plutarch himself should not have subscribed anyway, for he 
held that the curvature of a circle is uniform (cf. be Facie 
932 f and Class. Phil., xlvi [1951], p. 144). 

b Cf. Proclus, In Primum Euclidis El. Lib., p. 54, 11-13 



lying planes at a point and others at a line. Con- 
sequently one might surmise that many straight 
lines when put together bit by bit produce the 
circular line. 

4. Consider too that none of the circular or 
spherical things in this world is exactly perfect b but 
there is a superficial appearance of roundness and 
circularity, the difference being unnoticed because 
of the tension and distension of the rectilinears or 
the minuteness of their parts, this being the reason 
why none of the bodies in this world moves naturally 
in a circle either but all move in a straight line, 
whereas the really spherical is an element not of 
perceptible body but of soul and intelligence, to 
which he assigns as naturally befitting them circular 
motion as well. d 

(Friedlein) ; [Plato], Epistle vii, 343 a 5-9 ; and Plato, 
Phllebus 62 a 7-b 9. 

c Cf Atticus, frag, vi (Baudry) =Eusebius, Praep. Evang. 
xv, 8, 7 (ii, p. 367, 13-18 [Mras]) ; Proclus, In Primum 
Euclidis El. Lib., p. 82, 7-12 and pp. 147, 22-148, 4 (Fried- 
lein). In calling the spherical, of which the natural motion is 
circular (cf De E 390 a), ttjs ^vxrjs . . . aTotxetov, however, 
Plutarch seems to be perilously close to the identification of 
soul with the Aristotelian ttI^tttti ovaia KVK\o<j>op7]TiKri (cf 
Cherniss, Aristotle's Criticism of Plato . . ., pp. 601-602 ; P. 
Moraux, R.-E. xxiv [1963], cols. 1248, 37-1251, 12). Even 
" materialists " like the Atomists and Chrysippus had 
assigned the spherical to soul (cf Aristotle, De Anima 404 
a 1-9 and 405 a 8-13 ; S. V.F. ii, frag. 815). 

d Plato, Timaeus 34 a 1-4, 36 e 2—37 c 3, 47 b 5-c 4 and 
Laws 898 a 3-b 3 (cf. Cherniss, Aristotle's Criticism of Plato 
. . . , pp. 404-405) ; cf. De An. Proc. in Timaeo 1024 c-d. 



(1004) ZHTHMA S' 

II cos nor cv Tip 1 QaLhpcp Aeyerai to tt)v tov 2 
7TT€pov (f)VGLV } vfi rjs dvo) to epifipidks aVdyerai/ 
K€KOivcjvr)K€vat /xaAtora toji> rrepl to otofia tov 
decoy; 4, 

WoTtpov otl irepl k'pcoTos 6 Aoyos ioTL, KaAAovs 
Se tov 7T€pl to ocbfJLa 6 <=pios , to §e kolAAos d/xotd- 

TTjTl TT] TTpOS TO, 061a KlV€l /Cat dvafJUflVrjOKei TTjV 

D ifrvx^v; r] pL&AAov ovSev rrepiepyaoTeov dAAd anAus 

a.KOVGT€OV OTL, TtOV 7T€pl TO GWfJLa T7JS fax^S 8wd~ 

fieaiv rrAeiovajv* ovotbv, rj AoyioTiKtf /cat hiavo- 
r)TLKT} fidAtoTa tov Oelov KeKotvcbvrjKev, rjv tojv 
delcov /cat ovpaviwv €<f>r)a€v; 7 rjv ovk diro Tporrov 
7TT€pov Trpoorjyopevoev, cog ttjv ^vyr^v ^ Tf ^ t< ^ v 
Ta7T€tvd)v /cat 6vrjT<x)v dva<f>€povoav . 


1 . II cos 7TOT6 qhrjoiv 6 IIAaTOjy Tr)v avTirrepiGT gl- 
ow tt)$ KLvrjoeajs Std to p^rjoapiov Kevov virdpxtiv 

1 to) -omitted by J 1 , g. 

2 tov -omitted by Escorial T-l 1-5 (17 -nrtpov hvvayns -Plato, 
Phaedrus c 24>6 d 6). 

3 ay€Tdi -J 1 , g (ayciv avw -Plato, Phaedrus 246 d 6 ; but 
for avayetv dvoj cf Republic 533 D 2-3). 

4 0€lov -Kaltwasser (cf 1004 d infra and Phaedrus 246 
D 8) ; 0eou -mss. 

5 7t\€i6vojv -omitted bv J 1 . 

6 XoyiaTiKT) -Ziegler (R.-E. xxi/i [1951], col. 748, 4) ; S ta - 

XoyiGTtKTj -3ISS. 

7 €<j>va€v -Escorial T-l 1-5. 

° Plato, Phaedrus 24*6 u 6-8. 

b C/. Phaedrus 249 d 4-251 a 7 and 254 b 5-7 ; Plutarch, 
Amatorius 765 b, n, f and 766 a, v.-v ; Plotinus, /£»». vi, 
vii, 22, lines 3-19. 




In what sense is it asserted in the Phaedrus a that 
the pinion's nature, by which what is heavy is raised 
on high, is among things of the body most closely 
akin to the divine ? 

Is it because the subject of the discourse is love 
and beauty of the body is the object of love and 
beauty by its similarity to things divine stirs the 
soul and makes it remember ? b Or should one 
rather not labour the point at all but understand 
quite simply that, while there are a good many 
faculties of the soul concerned with the body, the 
faculty of reason or thought, whose objects he has 
said are things divine and celestial, is most closely 
akin to the divine ? d This faculty he not inappro- 
priately called a pinion because it bears the soul 
up e and away from the things that are base and 


1. In what sense does Plato say f that, because 
there is void nowhere, the cyclical replacement 9 of 

c Cf. the interpretation given by Hermias, In Platonis 
Phaedrum, p. 133, 25-30 (Couvreur). 

d Of. Phaedo 80 b 1-3 and 84 a 7-b 4 ; Symposium 21 1 e 
3—212 a 2 with Phaedrus 247 c 6-8, 248 b 7-c 2, and 249 c 
4-6 and Republic 611 e 1-5 ; and also Philebus 62 a 7-8 for 
the ideas, the objects of reason or intelligence, as dela. 

e Cf. An Sen I Respublka Gerenda Sit 786 d. 

' Timaeus 79 e 10—80 c 8. 

9 The process is not called avrnrepioTaois by Plato, but 
Aristotle called it this (Physics 215 a 14-15 and 267 a 15-20 
[cf. Simplicius, Phys., p. 668, 32-34 ; p. 1350, 31-36 ; and 
p. 1351, 28-291) as well as neptcums (Parva Natural w 472 



(1004) alrlav elvat rtov nepl ras larpiKas (wcvas 1 ira9r\- 
ixarcov 2 /cat twv rrzpl ttjv Karairoaiv^ /cat ra pi- 
E TTTOVjAtva fidprf /cat ra rtov vbdrcov pev/iara /cat 
K€pavvovs ttjv T€ ^atvo^eVrp 7rpog rjXeKTpa /cat TTjV 
Xldov ttjv 'Hoa/cAaav 5 oXktjv ras re rtov (f)96y- 
ycov ovpi(j)ix)vL(is ; 6 86£ei yap oltottojs alriav (jiiav") 1 

TTCLpLTToXXtDV KOLL dvOpLOiWV y€V€VW €7Tay€tV 6 7Ta9a>V. 

2. To pL€V ydp 7T€pl ttjv dvaTrvorjv to? yiyverai 
rfj dvTL7T€piarda€L rod depos avros 9 t/cava)? a7roSe- 
Set^e* rd Se Xoirra rrdvra <f>rjaas 6 av p,ar ovpyelo 9 ai 
tco Kevov 10 elvat firjBev Trepicodeiv $' avrd ravr 
els dXXrjXa /cat Staju,et/3ecr#at rrpog ra? avrwv ehpas 
tovra, ttjv Kad* €kclgtov i£epyaoiav rjpuv d<f>r\K€. 

TOV ioTIV 6 7T€piXrj(f)d€ls V7T* aVTTJS 12 TTpOS rfj OCLp- 

F /ct jjierd OepjjiorrjTos dr)p eKTrvptoOels /cat yevofxevos 

1 aiKTjas -J 1 , g. 

2 fiaJBnfidrwv -J 1 . 

3 Kardaraaiv -J 1 * g. 

4 jSap-j; -X, J, g, e, n ; jiepiy -all other mss. 

5 Hubert; rr\v XiOov rrjv 'HpdtcXeiov -Escorial T-ll-5; 
tov Xidov tov (rqv -Voss. 16) 'Hpd/cAeiov -all other mss. 

6 avp,<f>6ovias " J • 

7 <fjLiav> -added by Fahse (implied by versions of Amyot 
and Xy lander) ; p,iav instead of alriav -Schellens (after Wyt- 
tenbach) ; alriav (aire over erasure -a 2 ) iraixiroXXoiv -mss. 

8 ircdyeiv -Turnebus, Xylander ; v-ndyeiv -mss. 

9 avrov -J, g. 

10 H. C. ; kcu toj Kevov -Bernardakis ; re Kal (i.e. flau/Aa- 
rovpyeladai re /cat etvat) -MSS. 

11 OLKyav -J l , g. 

12 aurov-J 1 , g. 

It was Plato's express purpose to banish 6Xktj from 
physical theory (Timaeus 80 c 2-3 ; cf. Cherniss, Aristotle's 
Criticism of Plato . . ., n. 306 on p. 387 sub finem). This 
point is missed entirely in " Timaeus Locms M 101 d — 102 A, 


motion is the cause of what happens in the case of 
medical cupping-instruments and in that of swallow- 
ing and of weights that are thrown and of flowing 
waters and of thunderbolts and of the apparent 
attraction a to amber and the loadstone and of the 
consonances of sounds ? For he would seem in extra- 
ordinary fashion to be proposing a {single) cause as 
the source of numerous and dissimilar occurrences. 

2. For, while in the case of respiration he has 
given an adequate exposition himself b of the way in 
which it comes about by the cyclical replacement of 
the air, for all the rest, after saying that these ap- 
parent wonders are produced because there is no 
void and these objects push themselves around into 
one another and interchange in going to their own 
positions, he left it to us to work out the particulars. 

3. Well then, in the first place, the case of the 
cupping-instrument is like this. The air, which along 
with heat it has enclosed next to the flesh, having 
become fiery and finer in texture than the pores of 

where respiration occurs iXKOfxevoj ra> dipos dvrl tc5 d-nop- 
peovros, the cupping-instrument dnavaXajdevTos vtto toj 
7Tvp6s rat aepos £(j>e\K€Tai to vypov (cf. Hero Alexandrinus, 
Pneumatica, Prooem., p. 16, 10-16 [Schmidt]), and amber 
dvaXafi^dvei to Sfiotov otofia. 

b Timaeus 79 a 5-e 9. Cf. Albinus, Epitome xxi (p. 107 
[Louis] =p. 175, 20-27 [Hermann]) and " Timaeus Locrus " 
101 d— 102 a (see the last note supra) and the criticisms of the 
exposition by Aristotle (Parva Naturalia 472 b 6-32) and by 
Galen (De Placitis Hippoc. et Plat, viii, 8= pp. 714, 14-720, 
16 [Mueller] and In Plat. Timaeum Comment. Frag, xvii- 
xix-pp. 22, 27-26, 2 ([SchrOder]). 

r In this paraphrase of Timaeus 80 c 3-8 SiaK/uvo/ueva *ai 
ovyKpivo^va (c 4-5) is omitted, an omission which affects 
the meaning of Sta/xet^o/xe^a in the original and obscures the 
connexion of the passage with Timaeus 58 b 6-c 2. 



(1004) rwv rod 1 x a ^ K °v 7r6pa>v 2 apaiorepos e^eircoev 

OVK €1$ K€V7jV X^P av (°V y^P €OTlv)" CtV 8e* TOV 

TTepiearwra ttjv oiKvav 4 e£a)6ev depa, kolk€ivov air- 
eo)oev 6 8e tov 77700 oivtov* /cat rovro rtaoyuyv 
del Kal 8pa>v b 6 epmpooQev V7roxo)peZ } * r-n? /ce- 
vovfjLevrjs yAt^d/xevo? x^pas rjv 6 npcoTos e^eXnrev 
1005 ovrcx) 8e rij oapKi TrepnTiTTTO)v , rjs rj aiKva 8e- 
8/oa/crat, Kal dvaine^cov 8 a/xa' crwe/c#At/kt to vypov 
eis ttjv oiKvav. 

4. *H 8e KaTdnooLS yiyverai tov olvtov rporrov 
at yap irepl to ord/xa /cat 11 tov oTOfxaxov /cot- 
\oT7]Tes depos del rrXripeis elolv. oTav ovv e/x- 
irieoOij to OLTiov vtto Trjs yXwTTrjs , atia Kal Tti)V 
TrapLodfjLiwv evTadevTa>v, eKOXifiofxevos 6 drjp rrpos 
tov ovpavov 12 e^eTat tov vrroxotpovvTos /cat ovv- 
e7TO)9ei to aiTtov. 

5. Ta 8e piTTTOvpieva fidprj tov depa C7j(t^€t /xcra 
TrXrjyfjs epmeoovTa™ Kal SilaTqow 6 8e rrepcp- 
pecov omaco ra> 14 (f>voiv ex^iv del ttjv eprj/jLovjjLevrjv 15 

1 tov -omitted by J 1 , g. 

2 Tropcov a»s "^ ? aayptov -J 1 * g. 

3 ovte-€. 

4 aiKi\av -J 1 , g. 

5 hpoiv -Wyttenbach ; dywv -mss. 

6 vnoxojpti <6 o' omadev €nix<op(l> -Wyttenbach. 

7 criK^a-J\ g. 

8 avami^tov -Emperius (Op. PhiloL 9 p. 340); dva^ecov -J, 
g ; dva^tov -all other mss. 

9 dpua -omitted by n. 

10 oiKijav -J 1 , g. 

11 to oTd>a *ai -omitted by J 1 , g. 

12 tov ouoawv -Nogarola, Stephanus, a 1 (?) ; to iJkov -a 2 , 



the bronze escapes not into empty space (for there 
isn't any) but into the air surrounding the cupping- 
instrument from without and pushes this air aside, 
as this air does that before itself ; and at every step 
thus acted upon and acting the air that is in front 
gives way, making for the vacated space which the 
first had left, and so, falling upon the circumference 
of the flesh gripped by the cupping-instrument and 
pressing it up, it simultaneously squeezes the liquid 
out into the cupping-instrument. a 

«k Swallowing occurs in the same way, for the 
cavities of the mouth and the oesophagus are always 
full of air. So, when the food is pressed in by the 
tongue, the fauces too having been stretched taut 
at the same time, the air, being squeezed out against 
the palate, follows closely upon that which gives 
way and helps to push the food on. fc 

5. Weights that are thrown cleave the air and se- 
parate it because of the impact with which they have 
fallen upon it ; and the air because of its nature 
always to seek out and fill up the space left empty 

a Asclepiades of Bithynia, who compared the mechanism 
of respiration with the action of cupping-instruments, must 
have explained the latter also by a kind of Tjeptuxjis without 
the intervention of oAktj ([Plutarch], De Placitis 903 e-f = 
Dox. Graeci % pp. 412, 31-113, 1 ; cf. R. A. Fritzsche, Rhein. 
Mns. % N.F. lvii [1902], p. 384). 

b Cf. the view opposed by Galen (De Naturalibus Facul- 
tatibus iii, chap. 8=pp. 176-177 [Kiihn]) that in deglutition 
the food is merely pushed down from above without any 

n ; to cIkov -all other mss. (to omitted by Voss. 16, Escorial 

13 All mss. (pare Hubert) ; eK-rreaovra -Aldine, Basil. 

14 to -J. 16 €prjfjLcon€vr)v -J 1 . 



(1005) \odpov 8lo)K€iv /cat dvairXr^povv ovviir^rai rep a</)- 
te/xeVa/ T7jv KLvqcriv ovv^tt it ayyvoav . 2 
B 6. At 8e row Kepavvcov tttojocis /cat avTal pl- 
i/jeaiv ioLKaaiv iKTrrjSa yap vtto 7rXr)yfj$ iv tG) 

V€(f)€L y€VOfJL€V7)S TO TTVptbSes €tS" TOP OLfEpa, KOLK€lVOS 

avTippayels VTro^ojpel /cat ttoXiv et? tolvto 3 avp/ni- 
TTTtov avcadev encode? koltoj rrapd (f>vaiv A aVo/?ta£d- 


7. To S' rjXeKTpov 5 ovSev c'A/cct twv 7rapa/cet- 
pLevojv ojaTrep ovSe rj criSrjpcTis Xi&og, ovSe rrpoo- 


/xev AiOos Tivas dnoppoas* e^irjow €/xj3pt#ets" /cat 
7rr€V(jLaToj8ecs, ats* 6 avpe^rjg dvaoTeXAopLevos drjp 

OJ0€t TOV 7Tp6 aVTOV' KaK€WOS €V KVkXco 7T€pitOJV 

/cat vttovogtcov au#t? em 7 ttjv K€vovp,evrjv )(topav 
C aTrofttd^eTat /cat avvc^)eXK€Tat tov atSrjpov. to <5' 

1 efaepevq) -J 1 , g, Voss. 16, Escorial T-ll-5. 

2 i7TiTaxvvu)v -E, B, Escorial T-ll-5. 

3 etV ravra -J, g. 

4 7ra/xz t^v (j)vaiv -J 1 , g. 

5 ro 5' 7]XeKTpov . . . avve<j>eXK€Tai tov oihnpov -omitted by e. 

G Bernardakis ; aTroppolas -mss. 

7 * * V 
' VTTO --A. 

01 C/. Simplicius, Pkys., p. 668, 25-32 on Aristotle, Physic* 
215 a 14-15 and the objections of Aristotle (Physics 267 a 
15-20) and of Philoponus (Phys., pp. 639, 12—641, 6). No- 
thing is said in the Timaeus of the acceleration to which 
Plutarch refers (cf. A. E. Taylor, A Commentary on Plato's 
Timaeus, p. 572 on 80 a 1-2 ; F. Wehrli, Die Schule ties 
Aristoteles, Heft v 2 , p. 63 on Strato, frag. 73). 

b Cf. Aristotle's explanation of the downward motion of 
the thunderbolt contrary to its nature (Meteorology 342 a 12- 
16 and 369 a 17-24). 

c i.e. ttjv XlOov tt)v 'H/xx/cAetav of 1004 E supra called rj 
oihripiris as here by Plutarch in De hide 376 b and Qnaest. 



flows around behind and follows along with the object 
discharged, helping to accelerate its motion. a 

6. The falling of thunderbolts itself also resembles 
the hurling of missiles, for the impact that has oc- 
curred in the cloud makes the fiery substance leap 
out into the air, and the latter gives way when it has 
been rent asunder and, falling back together again, 
expels the thunderbolt from above, forcing it back 
downwards contrary to its nature. 6 

7. Amber does not attract any of the objects 
placed near it as the loadstone c does not either, nor 
does any of the things in their neighbourhood spring 
to them of itself ; but the loadstone emits certain 
effluvia which are heavy and like wind, and the con- 
tiguous air, forced back by these, pushes the air 
that is before itself, and that air, moving around in 
a circle and settling again upon the vacated space, 
forces the iron back and drags it along with itself. d 

Conviv. 641 c ; cf. Plato, Ion 533 d 3-5 and Pliny, NJL 
xxxvi, 127. 

d The similarity of the ancillary cause of the iron's motion 
given by Lucretius (vi, 1022-1041) led R. A. Fritzsche to 
assume a common source and to identify this as Asclepiades 
of Bithynia, who is known to have denied the occurrence of 
6\kt) in nature (Rheln. Mus. y N.F. lvii [1902], pp. 369-373 and 
pp. 386-389) ; but cf M. Bollack, Rev. Etudes Latines, xli 
(1963 [1964]), pp. 171-173 and pp. 183-184. Plutarch's 
ow€(f>€XK€Tai here and tycXKcrai in the next sentence are 
unfortunate expressions at least, for, although they refer to 
11 traction " by the air which is driven from behind and not 
to any " attraction " by the magnet or amber, they might be 
thought to compromise the denial of oA/oJ, the original prin- 
ciple of the theory (cf. ouScv IA*et at the beginning of this 
paragraph), and to represent a contamination with the Epi- 
curean notions expressed by ducitur ex element is (Lucretius, 
vi, 1012) and by ovvemoTraodaL tov olS-qpov (Epicurus, frag. 
293 [l T sener, Epicurea,p. 208, 26-27]). 



(1005) Tjh€Krpov e^a \iiv tl 1 <f>Xoyo€ioes rj TTveviiariKOv y 
£Kj8aAAei Se rovro rplijjei* rrjs Imfyavtias > rcov 


7toi€lto> z rrjs ai8r)plri8os, c^eA/c€Tcu 8e rwv 7rXr)alov 
rd Kov<f>6rara /cat fyporara Sia X€Trrorr]Ta Kal 
ao0€V€iav ov yap loriv ioyypov ov8* e^ei fiapos 
ov8e pvprqv irXrjQos depos ifjtovai 8vva/jL€vr)v, to rcov 
fiet^ovcov, coorrep rj aiSrjpiTis, irnKparrjoei. nebs ovv 
ovre Aluov ovre $vaov o ar)p aAAa fxovov rov 01- 
hrjpov* cbdel Kal TrpoooreXXec 5 rrpos ttjv* Xidov; av- 
rrj S' earl fxev diropia kowt) rrpos re tovs 7 oXkyj 
rrjs 8 XlOov Kal tovs 9 (f)opq rod oiSrjpov rr)v avpi- 
rrrj^Lv olop,evovs yiyveodai rcov acopiara>Vy elrj Xvais 
D S' av ovrcos vrro rov YlXdrcovos . 10 6 ol8r)pos ovr 
ayav dpatos ianv cos tjvXov ovr ayav ttvkvos cos 
Xpvaos r) Xidos dXX* eyet rropovs Kal olp,ovs 11 Kal 
rpaxyrrjras 8ta ras dvcopcaXias rco depi avfifierpovs, 
coare fir) 12 drroXiaOaiveiv dXXd e8pais rialv evioxd- 
\xevov Kal dvrepeiaeai 13 7repi7rXoKr)v avfifierpov €\ov- 

1 fxcvTOL -A, Escorial T-ll-5. 

2 rfj rplxltei -A 2 , ]8, y, E, B, Voss. 16, Escorial T-ll-5, 
Bonon. 3 T o -J, g, Voss. 16. 

4 rov ot&rjpov povov -J, g. 

5 H. C. ; TrpooreXXei -mss. 

6 Wyttenbach ; rov -mss. 

7 rfj -J, g. 

8 rfjs -Bernardakis ; rov -mss. 

9 tt? -J, g. 

10 H. C. ; owjidrajv elXvoTT&v ovrcos vno rov HXdrcovos -X, 
e, n ; aoj^idrcov . • . vac. 18 (erased) . . . 6 ol&rjpos -a; aco/xa- 
rojv . . • vac. 4 . . . o al&rjpos (with iAu<77Tav outcos vtto rov 
TlXdrojvos added in margin) -/} ; oajfjudrtDv . . . vac. 11 to 
16 ... o oforjpos -A, E, B ; between aoo/iarojv and o (71877- 
poj: IXvoirav -Voss. 16, *at IXvoirdv -Escorial T-ll-5, IXvonav 
(with ovrous vtto rov HAaToovo? deleted) -Bonon. ; oajfidratv 6 


Amber contains a substance like flame or wind which 
it ejects when its pores have been opened by friction 
of its surface ; and this substance, when it has 
escaped, has the same action as that from the load- 
stone has but because of its tenuousness and weak- 
ness drags along the lightest and driest of the things 
in the neighbourhood, for it is not strong and does 
not have weight or impetus capable of expelling an 
amount of air with which to master the larger objects 
as the loadstone does. How is it then that the air 
pushes and presses against the loadstone neither 
stone nor wood but only iron ? This, to be sure, is a 
difficulty that confronts equally those who think that 
the cohesion of the bodies comes about by the load- 
stone's attraction and those who think that it comes 
about by conveyance of the iron, a but Plato might 
provide a solution in the following way. Iron is 
neither exceedingly loose in texture like wood nor 
exceedingly close like gold or stone but has pores 
and passages and corrugations which by reason of 
their irregularities conform to the air ; and the 
result is for the air, however in its motion to the 
loadstone it may fall upon the iron, not to slip off 
but, intercepted by certain lodgements and counter- 

a i.e. by the iron's being " carried " or propelled to the 
magnet as in Plutarch's own explanation ; <f>opa does not 
here refer to any " impulse " of the iron itself, for such an 
explanation (as e.g. in Alexander, Quaestiones, p. 74, 24-30 
[Brims]) would not be confronted by this difficulty. 

albrjpos (without lacuna) -J, g, y; evXvros 8' av ovtcjs vtto 
(or /Lterd) tov UXdrtovos -Hubert ; e'Avero 8* av ovrtos vtto tov 
UXoltojvos -Bernardakis. 

11 X, c, n ; olfias -all other mss. 

12 Diibner ; ^itjtc -mss. 

13 dvT€p€ia€GL jccu -J » g. 



(1005) vais, cos" dv ipLTTearj irpos tt]v x Xldov ^po/xevos, diro- 
j8id£ecr0cH Kal Trpoojdelv top otSrjpop. tovtojv jxkv 

OVV TOIOVTOS TL£ 2 OP eirj X6yO$. 

8<TT M ~ 3 > * ^ *£ f «■/ ' < I 

. O 06 TO)l> €771 yTJ? UOaTOOV pVGIS OVX OflOlOJS 

€t3oW07TTOV €^€t TOP T7}9 dpTl7T€plWO€U)$ TpOTTOvS 

dXXd %p^ KarafjLavddvew ra Xtpuvala t&v vSoltojv 
arpefjiovvra Kai fxevovra ra> TrepiKe^vadai Kal ovp- 

E ayayeZv iravraxodev avToZs 5 aKLPrjTOP dipa, fJLrjSa- 
fjbov KevTjv iroiovvra xwpav. to yovv im7roXfjs 
vSojp k'p re rats Xifxpais Kal iv rot? TreXdyeoi So- 
velrai Kal KvpLatverai rod depos adXov XajApdvov- 
ros ' errerai yap evdvs fieOiarapieva) Kal ovparroppeZ* 
Sid rrjv dvojfjiaXiav rj yap Kara) TrXrjyrj rrjv kolXo- 
rrjra iroiei rod KVfxaros r) S' dVco top oyKov, d\pC 
ov s Karaurrj Kal iravoryraiy rfjs Trepiexovorjs 9 ra 
vypd x^po-S IcrTafjLevrjs . 10 at pvotis ovv rtov 11 <£epo/X€- 
vu)V del rd V7roxojpovvra rod depos SiojKovaai toZs 
S' avTiTrepioidovixevois 12 eXavvojxevai to ivSeXex^s 
Kal dXoj(f)rjTOv exovai. Sco Kal (f>epopTac OaTTov ol 

F TTOTafiol 7rXr)dvovT€s 13 * OTav 8' oXiyov rj Kal koZXop, 
av^tercu to vypov vtt aouevzias, ovx vtt€ikovtos 

1 Diibner (after Wyttenbach supra) ; rov -mss. 

2 res -omitted by J 1 , g, € . 

3 rov -g. 4 roTTOv -J, g. 

5 Escorial T-ll-5 ; avrols -all other mss. 

6 avvarropel -X, e ; avvairoppeirat -J» g. 

7 Bernardakis ; axpis -mss. 8 ovv -n. 

9 Trepcovarjs -J 1 * g> ft (superscript over ircpiexovarjs) ; irtpi- 
€xovaas -Escorial T-ll-5 (a-qs over era? -corr.). 

10 lardficvos -J\ Voss. 16, Escorial T-ll-5, Bonon. corr. ( 0? 
superscript over t]s) ; iardfi€va -g ; iviarapilvqs (" impediente ' ' ) 
-Wyttenbach. u rov -Escorial T-l 1-5. 

12 rod 5' dvriTr€fH.7T€pLco9ovfi€vov -Escorial T-ll-5. 

13 TrXrjOvvovres -J, g, Voss. 16, Escorial T-ll-5. 


pressures with meshes that conform to it, to force 
the iron back and push it on before itself. a Well 
then, of these phenomena there might be some such 

8. It is not similarly easy to comprehend the way 
in which cyclical propulsion is involved in the flowing 
of waters upon the earth. It must be observed, how- 
ever, that the water of pools is calm and at rest 
because it has spread and collected about itself from 
all sides motionless air that nowhere leaves an 
empty space. At any rate, the water on the surface 
in pools and in seas is agitated and undulates when 
the air begins to surge, for it straightway follows 
the latter as it changes position and flows off along 
with it because of the irregularity, the downward 
impact b producing the trough of the wave and the 
upward impact the swell until it has settled down 
and stopped as the space that encompasses the 
waters comes to rest. The streams of running 
waters, then, always pursuing the air that gives 
way and being driven on by that which is pushed 
around in turn, flow perpetually and unremittingly. 
This is also why rivers run more swiftly when they 
are full ; but, when the water is low and shallow, it 
grows slack from feebleness, as the air does not 

a Cf. Lucretius, vi, 1056-1064 with R. A. Fritzsche, Rhein. 
Mas., N.F. lvii (1902), p. 370 and p. 372, n. 14 ; and especi- 
ally for the terminology cf. the use of the theory of effluvia, 
pores, and corrugations of a surface in Plutarch, Quaest. 
Naturales 916 d-f. 

6 i.e. the impact of the air on the water. 

14 Wyttenbach ; term -X, J, g, 0, B, e, n ; Utoll -all 
other mss. ; lararai -Wyttenbach, Apelt (Philologus, lxii 
[1903], p. 287). i* inJKovros -J, e, n. 



(1005) rod dtpos oi)Se noXXrjv dvmrepLoraoiv XapifidvovTos . 
ovtw Se /cat tcl nrjycua rG)v vhdrwv avayKalov 1 
ionv ava<f>€peadai, rod BvpaOev aepos els ras Kevov- 
fjievas 2 ev fiddei xcopas* v7ro<f>€pop,€vov /cat rrdXiv 9v- 

1006 pa£c TO vSojp iKTTCfJLTTOVTOS . OLKOV 8e fidOvOKLOV 

/cat 7rept€^o^ro? depa vrjvepiov 4 v8an pavdev 5 e8a<f)Os 
7TV€v\xa rroiei /cat avefiov, pedcorapLevov rod dtpos 
c£ eSpas 7rap€p,7TL7TTovTi To> vypcp /cat 7rA^yd? 
XapifidvovTos . 6 ovtojs etjojOeladal 6* vtt* dAA^Aa>v 
/cat dvdv7T€iK€iv dXXrjXois netfrvKev, ovk ovorjs /ce- 

VOTTjTOS €V fj ddr€p0V L&pvOeV 7 OV fjL€$€^€l TTJg 6<IT€- 

pov perafioXfjs . 

9. Kat )Lt7]v rd Trcpt ttJs" 8 ovpcf>ojvias avros et- 
pr)K€v ov rponov opioi^OTradtTs at /ctvqaets- 77oi) 9 o£cn 
tou? <f)86yyovs. 6£vs ptev yap o ra^i? ytyvcrat 
fiapvs 8k 6 fipaSvs 10 ' 816 /cat rrportpov kivovol 11 rrjv 
aioOrjoiv ol diets' * drai> Se tovtois rfhrf 1 p,apcuvop,€- 
vocs 13 /cat dTroATyyovcw ot fipahels emfSdXajoiv dpyp- 
B pLevoL, to Kpadev avrtov 8id opoiOTrdOeiav rjSovrjv 
rfj aKofj TTapioysv, rjv ovp<f>a)viav koXovoiv. on 
8k tovtojv opyavov 6 drjp ion pdSiov ovviSeiv e/c 
ru)v irpoeipTjpLevwv. eon yap rj (f>ojvr) 7rXrjyr) rod 

1 rd 7T7)yata tcuv dvayKaitov -J 1 -, g. 

2 K€VOVji4vas "X 1 ; Kivovp,€vas ~J X « 

3 x<*>pa.S €*v j3a0€i -X. 

4 Wyttenbach (rj vr^vcfiov -Leonicus, Nogarola) ; depa rj 
av€fiov -mss. 6 padkv -J l . 

G Xafipdvomi -J 1 , g- 

7 J, g ; llpvvQkv -all other mss. 

8 rds-Voss. 16, Escorial T-ll-5, Bonon. 

9 <. . .> -added by Pohlenz ; 6p.oiovcri -mss. ; o^oXoyovai ol 
(j>06yyoL -Nogarola. 10 fSapvs -J 1 . 

11 X, c, n ; irpoTepov ov Kivovat -all other mss. (but ov erased 
in a and cancelled in A). 12 rjSrj -omitted by *. 



yield and does not undergo much cyclical replace- 
ment. It must be in this way too that the waters of 
fountains run upwards, the air from outside running 
down into the vacated underground spaces and 
thrusting the water forth again. In a darkened 
house where the air enclosed is still sprinkling the 
floor with water produces a draught or breeze, as 
the air shifts from its position before the moisture 
when it intervenes and is subjected to its impacts. 
Thus the two are naturally expelled by each other 
and yield to each other in turn, for there is no vacuity 
in which the one could be situated and so not par- 
take of the change in the other. 

9- And now as to the subject of consonance, he 
has himself stated ° how the sounds (are made con- 
gruous by the motions). For the sound that is swift 
turns out to be high, and that which is slow to be 
low, which is also why the sense is set in motion 
sooner by the high sounds ; and, when these as they 
are already fading out and dying away are over- 
taken by the slow sounds just beginning, b the pro- 
duct of their blending because of the congruity affords 
the hearing pleasure which men call consonance. 
7'hat the air is the instrument of this process is easy 
to see from what was previously stated. Sound, in 

a Timaeus 80 a 3-b 8. Of the genuine problems involved 
in this passage Plutarch appears not to have been aware. 
They are stated but not persuasively resolved by Cornford 
(Plato's Cosmology y pp. 390-826) and Moutsopoulos (La 
Musique . . . de Platoru pp. 36-42). 

b i.e. just beginning to affect the percipient by setting the 
sense in motion. 

c Thnaevs 67 b 2-6 ; vf. Plutarch, De Fortuna 98 b, Be E 
390 b, and De Defectu Orac. 436 o. 

13 <t)avcpoiA€vois (with fiapatvo superscript) -y. 



(1006) aladavojjievov St' cotcov U7r' aepos* irXrjrret yap 1 
TrXrjyels 6 drjp vtto tov Kivrjaavros, aV /xev fj ofyo- 
8pov, ogews, av 8* afifiXv, /xaXaKcoTepov 6 8rj 2 
G(f>68pa 3 /cat ovvtovojs TrXrjyelg* 7Tpoapiiyvvai rfj 
aKofj 7rp6r€pos 3 5 elra rrepucov ttoXiv* /cat KaraXafi- 
fidvcov tov 7 fipaSvrepov ovviirerai /cat avpmapa-nip,- 
77€t 8 rrjv alaOrjaiv, 


1 . Xlcos Xeyei rets" ifrvxds 6 Ttuatos et? T€ yijv /cat 
oGXrjvrjv /cat raAAa Sua opyava yjiovov o , nap , r\vai ; 
C Tlorepov ovtcos 9 c/ctWt rrjv yrjv cooirep r^Xiov /cat 
ueXrjvrjv koll 10 tovs nevre 7rXdvrjTas y ovs opyava 
Xpovov Std ras rporras 7Tpoorjy6pev€ , n /cat eSet tt)v 
yrjv IXXojjbevrjv 12 rr^pl tov Std ttovtojv ttoXov reraue- 
vov 13 uejjLTjxavfjadai, ur) 1 * cruvexouevrjv /cat uevovoav 
dXXa arp€(f>ofi€vrjv 15 /cat dvecXovuevrjv voeiv, cos 

1 re -J 1 , g ; re superscript over yap -X 1 . 

2 S Br) -X, J, g, A, y, E, B ; o' Se -n. 

3 o<j>o8pos ~g» 4 ovvrovos 7T\-qyTj -J, g. 

5 7TpOT€pOV "J 1 , g. 6 TTaVTO. "J 1 , g. 

7 to -J 1 , g, e. 

8 7rapa7r€p.7r€i, -Voss. 16, Escorial T-ll-5. 

9 OVT6t>S" ~X, J. 

10 77 o-eA^v^v t) -J 1 , g. 

11 7Tpoorjy6p€V<7€ -J 1 * g. 

12 iXAop,4vr)v . . . dmAotYievrjv -omitted by J 1 * g \ elWovfJLevrjv 
(ei and oy superscript overt and o) -B corr -; €cXoufjL€vr)v-Voss. 
16, Escorial T-ll-5. 

13 rerayueW -a, A, B 1 (y erased -£ 2 ), y, E, B, e, n, Escorial 

14 X, jS 2 , Bonon., Voss. 16, Escorial T-ll-5; ^ ^€/^x a ^~ 
a#at -all other mss. ; [fiefirfxavrjadai] -Hartman (l)e Phttar- 
cho 9 p. 585). 

15 avaTp€<f>ofJi€vr)v -X. 

PLATONIC QUESTIONS vii-viii, 1006 

fact, is the impact made by air through the ears 
upon the percipient, for the air, when struck by the 
agent that moved it, strikes sharply if that agent is 
vehement and more softly if it is dull. The air, then, 
that has been struck vehemently and intensely comes 
upon the hearing sooner and then, moving around 
again and catching up the slower air, a accompanies 
it and with it conveys the sensation. 


1 . What does Timaeus mean by saying b that the 
souls were sowed in earth and moon and all the rest 
of the instruments of time ? 

Was he giving the earth motion like that of sun 
and moon and the five planets, which because they 
reverse their courses c he called instruments of time ; 
and ought the earth coiling about the axis extended 
through all d be understood to have been devised 
not as confined and at rest but as turning and whirl- 

a This seems to contradict the statement just above, 6rav 
8e tovtols • • • oi f3pa&€LS impdAojaiv dpx6f*€voi . . ., and is 
certainly not in accord with Timaeus 80 a 6-b 4. 

b Plato, Timaeus 42 d 4-5 (see also 41 e 4-5) ; cf. [Plu- 
tarchl, De Fato 573 e. 

c Cf. Timaeus 39 d 7-8 (. . . ra>v dcrrpcjv oaa hi' ovpavov 
7Top€v6jjL€va €crx€v rpo-nds • • •) and 40 b 6-7 (rd 8c rp^iropieva koX 
7r\d\rqv roiavTrjv taxovra . . .) with Proclus, In Platonis Ti- 
maeum iii, pp. 127, 31-128, 1 (Diehl). 

d Timaeus 40 b 8-c 2. Plutarch's p,€p,r)xavrj(70ai represents 
Plato's €jj.r)xavrjoaTo. Instead of Sid v-dm-cov (i.e. all the 
planetary orbits) the mss. of Plato have Sid 7ravTo'?, St* dnav- 
rosi or Sia tov -jravros ; and instead of tAAo/xeV^v two of them 
(W, Y) have ctAou/LwrVryv, while two (A, P) have ctAAo/xcV^v (or 
ciAA-) T77V (cf. Cornford, Plato's Cosmology +\>. 120, n. 1 ; and 
for the textual tradition of Aristotle, De Caelo 293 h 31-32 
cf P. Moraux, Hermes, lxxxii [1954], pp. 176-178). 



(1006) varepov 'ApioTapyos kgll HeXevKOS aireSziKWoav, 6 
jjLev VTroridefievos fiovov 6 Se SeAev/cos koll aTTotfxii- 
vo/ievos ; Qeocfrpaaros Se kolI rcpooioropel r<5 
UXoltcovl Trpeofivreptp yevopitvcp fxerafiiXetv a>c ov 
7Tpoorp<QVuav airohovri rfj yrj rrjv /jL€OT]v yoopav 
rod ttolvtos. 


D yovfJi€VU)S l apeaKovTCDV tcq dvSpi, fJL€raypa7rr€ov 8e 
ro xP ovov XP 0V( P> AafxpavovTas avrt rrjs 

y€VLK7JS* T7JV 8oTlK7)V, KOLL 8€KT€OV OpyCLVCL [1ft] TOVS 

aorepas dAAd ra ocopbara rcbv ^tptov Aeyeodai 
Kada7T€p ' AptoToreArjs (Lpiaaro ttjv *}*vx*) v * VT€ ~ 

1 o/xoAoyou/xeWv -J 1 (final v remade to 5 -J 2 ), g. 

2 X, J 1 , g, j3, Bonon., Voss. 16, Kscorial T-11-5 C °". ; Aa/i- 
fiavovros ~y» Escorial T-ll-5 1 ; Aafxpavovra -a, A, 1% B, e, n. 

3 yevqriKrjs "J 1 * g- 

a C/. Plutarch, 2V Facie 923 a with the references in my 
note ad lor. (L.C.L. xii, p. 54, note a). 

6 Cf. Heath, Aristarchus of Santos, pp. 305-307 ; S. Pines, 
" In fragment de Seleucus . . .," Rev. oV liistoire des 
Sciences, xvi (1963), pp. 193-209 ; and N. Swerdlow, Ms, 
Ixiv (1973), pp. 242-243 in his review of B. L. van der 
\Yaerden, ibid., pp. 239-243. 

c Theophrastus, Phys. Opin., frag. 22 (Do#. (Jraeci, p. 
494, 1-3) ; cf. Plutarch, Numa xi, 3 (67 d). 

d Like Chalcidius (Platonis Timaeus, p. 187, 4-13 [Wro- 
bel] —p. 166, 6-12 [Waszink]) Plutarch here recognizes only 
two possible interpretations of IXXo^evrjv irtpl rov . . . -noXov : 
one, that the earth is stationary at the centre (with awexofie- 
vt)v kol iitvovoav cf. Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum hi, p. 137, 
6-7 and 13-20 [Diehl] and Plutarch's own usage in Quaest. 
Conviv. 728 e : iXXofxcvrfv rrjv ona /cat /cafleipyo/xcv^v), and 
the other, that the earth revolves like a planet around the 
axis common to all the planetary orbits (with crTp€<f>o/j,€vwv 
Kal av€iXovfi4vvv cf. Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum Hi, p. 138, 
7-8 [Diehl] : elXovfJLtvrjv Kal orp€<j>opL€vqv ; cf. ciAou/xeWuy 
[Simplicius, Phys., p. 292, 28-29] and aWA^cuv [Simplicius, 



ing about in the way set forth later by Aristarchus a 
and Seleucus, b by the former only as an hypothesis 
but by Seleucus beyond that as a statement of fact ? 
In fact Theophrastus even adds the observation c that 
Plato, when he had grown older, repented of having 
assigned to the earth as not befitting her the mid- 
most space of the sum of things. a 

2. Or is this in opposition to many of the opinions 
that the man admittedly held ; and must we change 
" of time " to read " in time," adopting the dative 
instead of the genitive, and take instruments to 
mean not the stars but the bodies of living beings 
in the way that Aristotle defined the soul as actuality 

be Caelo, p. 499, 15]). The way in which the second alterna- 
tive is limited by the comparison with the hypothesis of 
Aristarchus is made clear by what Theophrastus is reported 
to have said and doubly clear by the reference in Nuwa xi, 
where . . . rrjs yrjs ws €V eVepa x^pa KaOcGraxjrjs . . . shows it 
to be incompatible with the " more genuinely " Pythagorean 
theory of Simplicius which Cornford sought to identify as its 
true basis (Plato's Cosmology, pp. 127-129 ; K. Gaiser, 
Platons ungeschriebene Lehre [Stuttgart, 1963], p. 184, n. 155 
[pp. 385-387]) but which is itself certainly post- Aristotelian 
((/. W. Burkert, Welsh fit unci [N urn berg, 
1962], pp. 216-217). Plutarch's two alternatives silently 
exclude the possibility that the Timaeus refers to a central 
earth with axial rotation (Aristotle, De Gaelo 293 b 30-32 and 
296 a 26-27) or with any sort of vibratory or oscillatory 
motion, discredited modern fantasies recently revived by K. 
Gaiser (op. cit., p. 183, n. 153 [pp. 381-385]) in the form of 
41 wobbling motion about the axis . . . to produce a kind of 
nutation " and account for precession — which was unknown 
to Plato. On Timaeus 40 b 8-c 3, Aristotle's statements in 
the J)e Caelo, and the remark by Theophrastus cf. Cherniss, 
Aristotle's Criticism of Plato, pp. 545-564 : I. During, 
Gnomon, xxvii (1955), pp. 156-157 ; F. M. Brignoli, Giornale 
Italiano (H Filologia, xi (1958), pp. 246-260; W. Burkert, 
Weisheit und Wissenseha/t, p. 305, n. 17. 



(1006) Xex^iav 1 acopLaros <f>voiKov 2 SpyaviKov hvvdp^ei 
£a)r)v exovros, a/ore tolovtov elvai rov Xoyov at 
iffv^dl tls rd TrpoGTjKOVTa opyaviKa ad>piara iv 
XPWQ KareoTrdprjoav ; dXXa /cat rovro Trapd 3 rr)v 
86£av €gtlv ov yap drra^ dXXa ttoWolkis Spy ava 
Xpovov rovs dorepas etprjKev, ottov /cat rov tfXtov 
avrov els Siopiopiov /cat (f)vXaKj)v dpiOpLoiv xpdvov 4 
E yeyovivai (ftrjol pier a ra>v dXXatv TrXavqrwv. 

3. * 'Apiorov ovv rrjv yrjv opyavov aKoveiv xpdvov, 
pLrj kivov(jl€V7}v toorrep Tovg dor e pas t dXXa to/ 5 
irepi avrrjv jievovoav del rrapexeiv eKelvois (j>epo- 
tievois dvaroXds /cat Svcreis, at? rd rrpwra puerpa 
ra>v xpQ VOJV > r/fAepcu /cat vvKres, opi^ovrai- 8to 
/cat <f>vXaKa /cat Srjpuovpyov avrrjv drpeKrj wktos 
/cat rjfJLepas TrpooeiTre 6 ' /cat yap ol rcov wpoXoy iu)v 
yvd)fJLov€s ov av pipped lordpievoi rat? a/ctat? dXXa 
eorcores opyava xpdvov /cat p,erpa} yeyovaoi y pa- 
pbovpuevoi rrjs yfjs ro emrrpooOovv rep rjXicp rrepl 

1 ivheX^x^dv -J 1 , g ; ivreAexeiav -all other mss. ; <.rr ptoTT}v> 
ivT€\€xeiav -Bernardakis. 


3 irepi -J 1 . 


4 xpovov -J\ g ; xpo'vou X 1 ; xpdvcu -all other mss. 

5 rots -J 1 , g- 

6 Trpoo-rJKe -J, g. 

? / a ' 

7 Pohlenz ; teal [ilrpa xpdvou -X ; §cal xp^ vov f**Tpa -all 

other mss. 

a Aristotle, De Anima 412 a 27-28 and 412 b 5-6 are here 
conflated. In both the eVrtAe^eta is specified as rj ttpcottj, but 



of body that is natural, instrumental, and potentially 
possessed of life, a so that the meaning is like this : 
the souls in time were disseminated in the appro- 
priate b instrumental bodies ? This too, however, is 
contrary to his thought, for it is not once but fre- 
quently that he has called the stars instruments of 
time, since he even says c that the sun itself along 
with the other planets came into being to distinguish 
and preserve the numbers of time. 

3. It is best, then, to understand that the earth 
is an instrument of time not by being in motion as 
the stars are but by remaining always at rest as they 
revolve about her and so providing them with risings 
and settings, which define days and nights, the 
primary measures of times. d That is also why he 
called her strict guardian and artificer of night and 
day, 6 for the pins of sun-dials too have come to be 
instruments and measures of time not by changing 
their position along with the shadows but by standing 
still, imitating the earth's occupation of the sun when 

Plutarch need not therefore have written TTpcxtrrjv ivreXexeiav 
(cf. Dox. Graeci, p. 387 a 14-15 as against a 1-3). The crucial 
word for Plutarch here, SpyavtKov, comes from the second 
passage and in order to support the proposed interpretation of 
opyava in Timaeus 42 d 4-5 should be taken to mean not 
" furnished with instruments " (cf. De Anima 412 a 28-b 4) 
but " instrumental." 

6 Cf. Timaeus 41 e 5. 

c Timaeus 38 c 5-6. 

d Cf. " Timaeus Locrus " 97 d (yd 5* ev n£oa> Ibpvfidva . . . 
<Zpos re 6p(J>vas f<al dfiepas ytverat dvoids re /cat dvaToXds 
yewoaoa . . .) ; Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum in, pp. 139, 
23-140, 5 (Diehl). 

e Timaeus 40 c 1-2 ; cf. Plutarch, De Facie 937 e and 
938 e with my notes ad loc. (L.C.L. xii, p. 157, note c and p. 
165, note c). 



(1006) avrrjv VTrofopofieva), KaOairtp tlireu 'E/X'/reSo/cATjs' 

vvKra Se yala rldrjOLv, wf>urrafievrf </>a€€ooi. 

F tovto fi€v ovv roiavrqv e^et tt)v i^rjyrjoiv. 

4. 'Ekcivo 8e 2 fidXXov av tls vttlSoito, 3 pirj Trapd 
to €ikos 6 tfAtos kcu aroTTOJS AeyeTat* jjLera rrjs 
ueArjirqs kclI ru)v 7rAavrjT<jDV tls $iopi,op.6v %p6vov 
yeyovevai. Kai yap aAAojs pity a rov rjAiov to a£l- 
ajp,a Kau vtt avrov UAoltojvos €v WoAiTtla jSaat- 
Aeus avrjyopevrcu ttolvtos tov aiafhfrov Kai Kvpios, 
1007 tbo7Tep rov vorjrov rdyadov eKelvov yap 5 exyovos* 
Aeyerat, Trapl^ojv rols oparols fxerd rod (f>aiv€o6ai 
to yiyveodai, Kaddnep air* €K€lvov to elvai Kai to 
yiyvojGKtodac tols votjtoZs vrrapx^- tov Sr) toi- 
avTTjv (f)vatv e^ovra koX SvvapLiv TrjAcKavTrjv deov 
opyavov xpovov yzyovevai Kai \xiTpov ivapyks rrjs 7 
Trpos aXXrjAas* fipaSvTfJTi Kai Ta^ei tojv oktoj 
o<f)aLpa)v 8ia<f>opas ov irdvv Soke? TrpeTrw&es ouS' 
clAAojs cvXoyov elvai. prjTtov ovv rovs vtto tovtojv 

1 i(j>LGTafidv7] -Scaliger ; u<£icrra/x€voio (fcdeooi -Dids (Pu- 
etarum Philos. Fragmenta [1901], p. 126). 

2 €K€l Se -J 1 (corrected J 1 ), g. 

3 v7T€i8olto -J 1 (before erasure), g; vtto&oito -Voss. 16 (6 
over erasure). 

4 X4y€T<u -n ; \4yrjrai -all other mss. 

5 te-J\g. 

G eyyovos -X 1 ; ettyovos -a* e* n, Escorial T-ll-5 ; eyyovos 
-all other mss. 

7 rrjs -omitted by X, J 1 , g, a (but added superscript by 
X 1 and a 1 ). 

8 dXXrjXaLs -X (a superscript over m -X 1 ), J 1 , g. 

a Empedocles, frag. B 48 (D.-K.). There is no good reason 
to emend xxfucna^ivr] {cf. Aeschylus, Persae 87 ; Thucydides, 
vii, 66i 2) as Scaliger and Diels did ; but Kranz, who retains 



he moves down around her, as Empedocles said 

Night is produced by the earth when she stands in the way 
of the daylight. 

Such, then, is the explanation of this point. 

4. One might rather have misgivings about that 
other point, whether it is not unlikely and absurd to 
assert of the sun that along with the moon and the 
planets he came into being to distinguish time. 6 
For the sun is generally rated high in dignity and 
especially by Plato who himself in the Republic c has 
proclaimed him king and sovereign of all that is per- 
ceptible just as the good is of the intelligible, for of 
that good he is said to be the offspring, affording to 
things visible with their coming to light their coming 
to be even as that good is for things intelligible the 
source of their being and of being known. Now 
certainly for the god with such a nature and so much 
power to have come to be as an instrument of time 
and evident measure of the relative difference in 
speed and slowness of the eight spheres d seems to 
be not very proper and to be unreasonable besides. 
It must be stated, then, that because of ignorance 

it, is mistaken in insisting that it must imply motion of the 
earth (Rhein. Mus., c [1957], pp. 122-124). 

6 i.e. Timaeus 38 c 5-6, which was appealed to at the end 
of section 2 supra (1006 d sub finem). 

e Republic 506 e 3—507 a 4, 508 a 4-6, 508 b 12-c 2, 509 
b 2-8, and 509 d 1-4 ; see also Plutarch, ]Je Facie 944 e with 
my note ad loc. (L.C.L. xii, p. 213, note g). 

d Timaeus 39 b 2-5, where Plato says <£opas, however, and 
not " spheres " (cf. Cornford, Plato's Cosmology, pp. 78-79 
and 119 ; Cherniss, Aristotle's Criticism of Plato, p. 555). 
So the " circles " of Republic 617 b 4-7 are called " spheres " 
by Plutarch in Quaest. Conviv. 745 c and in l)e An. Proc. in 
Timaeo 1029 c. Cf. also Albinus, Epitome xiv, 7 (p. 87, 1-8 
[Louis] =pp. 170, 36-171, 7 [Hermann]). 



(1007) raparrofievovs St' ayvoiav oieaOai top \povov x 
fierpov etvai Kivrjaecus kolI dpiOfiov Kara rrpoTepov 

KCll VGTCpOV? d)S 'ApLdTOTeArjS €L7T€V, Tj TO Iv 

B Kivrjaei ttogov, ojs "LTrevoiTnros , r) SiacrT^/xa /a- 
vrJGews aAAo 3 S* 4 ovSev, <bs evioc rcov Htcolkcjv oltto 
avjjbfie fir) kotos 5 opL^ofxevoi Tr)v S' ovolav aurou kolI 

T7JV SvVOLfJUV OV GVVOpO)VT€S , TfV 6 y€* TllvSapOS 
€OLK€V OV (f>av\ti)S V7TOVOCOV €17T€LV 

dvCLKTCL 7 TOV TTOLVTCOV VTrepfidAAoVTCL XP^ vov% /* a " 


6 T€ Hvdayopas, ipcoTrjdels ri xpoVos 1 cgtl, tt)v 
Tovpavov 9 ifjvxrjv eLTTtiv. oi> yap Trad os ovSe ovpL- 
fiefirjKos rjs €TUX<e Kwrjaecos 6 XP° V °S zgtlv, atrta 
Se Kal hvvapus kolI ap^Y] ttjs rrdvTa GwexovGrjs ra 
yiyvopueva GVfifi€TpLas kcll Ta^etos, rjv r) tov oAov 


1 rctjv xpovcov -J» g. 

2 Kara ro rrporepov koX to vorepov -Escorial T- 1 1 -5 ; Kara. 
<ro> irpoTcpov Kal varepov -Bernardakis. 

3 aX\a-J\ g. 4 Sij-g. 
6 avfi^e^Kora -J 1 . 

6 -fjv ye -J 1 , g ; rjv 5 re -Stephanus. 

7 Heyne ; dva -J, g ; dva -all other mss. 

8 twv . . . xpovcjv -J, g. 

9 Turnebus ; rovrov -mss. ; rot; oAou -Nogarola. 

° Physics 219 b 1-2 and 220 a 24-25 (dptfyioy /av^aews- Kara 
to -nporepov Kal varepov), 220 b 32 — 221 a 1 and 221 b 7 
(fierpov Kivqoeais) ; c/. Plotinus, £Wi. hi, vii, 9, lines 1-2 
and J. F. Callahan, Four Views of Time in Ancient Philo- 
sophy (Harvard Univ. Press, 1948), pp. 50-53. 

b Speusippus, frag. 53 (Lang). Cf. Strata's to ev rats- 
TTpa&oi rrooov (Simplicius, Phys. y pp. 789, 34-35 and 790, 1-2 
= Strato, frag. 76 [Wehrli]). 

c S. V.F. ii, frag. 515 ; of. ii, frags. 509-510 and i, frag. 93 
and Box. Graeci, p. 461, 15-16 (Posidonius). 


those who are disturbed by these considerations 
think time to be a measure or number of motion 
according to antecedent and subsequent, as Aristotle 
said, or what in motion is quantitative, as Speusippus 
did, b or extension of motion and nothing else, as did 
some of the Stoics, defining it by an accident and not 
comprehending its essence and potency,** of which 
no mean surmise seems to have been expressed 
by Pindar in the words, 

The lord, the lofty, time, who excels all the beatified gods, e 
and by Pythagoras, when asked what time is, in the 
reply, the soul of the heavens/ For time is not an 
attribute or accident of any chance motion but 
cause and potency and principle of that which holds 
together all the things that come to be, of the sym- 
metry and order in which the nature of the whole 
universe, being animate, is in motion ; or rather, 

d Cf. Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum iii, p. 20, 10-15 and 
p. 95, 7-20 (Diehl) ; V. Goldschmidt, Le systeme stoXcien, pp. 

• Pindar, frag. 33 (Bergk, Schroeder, Snell)=24 (Turyn) 
= 14 (Bowra). 

f Assigned to the Pythagorean y KKovo^ara by A. Delatte 
(Etudes sur la litterature pythagoricienne [Paris, 1915], p. 
278) ; but cf. Zeller, Phil. Griech. i/1, p. 524, n. 2 and p. 546, 
n. 2. A fanciful interpretation is given by R. B. Onians, 
Origins of European Thought . . . (Cambridge, 1954), pp. 
250-251 ; but the definition here ascribed to Pythagoras 
might be connected with the theory mentioned by Aristotle 
(frag. 201 [Rose]), for which cf. Cherniss, Crit. Presoc. PA^7., 
pp. 214-216. 

Contrast Aristotle, Physics 251 b 28 (. . . 6 xpovos 7rd6os 
rt Kivrjotus)* 219 b 15-16, and 220 b 24-28 ; and cf. Proclus, 
In Platonis Timaeum iii, p. 21, 5-6 (Diehl) : ovk dpa dxroAou- 
6t]t4ov rots €V tpiXals iirivoiais avrov toraoiv rj avfipcp-qKOS tl 




(1007) , % , , , 

q ovoa kcu tol$is avrr] /cat avpLjxerpLa XP 0V °S *<*" 

iravra ydp 01 difso<f>ov 
fiatvcDv KeXev$ov Kara Slktjv tol Bvqr dyei. 
Kal yap rj ifwxrjs ovoia Kara rovs rraXaiovs ape- 
dpios rjv avros eavrov kivojv. 8lo Sr) /cat HXdrajv 
€<j>rj xpovov a/xa jier ovpavov ytyovevai Kivrjaw Se 2 
Kal rrpo rrjs rov z ovpavov* yeviotujs. xpovos S' 5 
ovk rjv % ovoe ydp Tacts' 6 ov&e \iirpov ov8ev ov8e 
ScopiGfiog dAAa klvtjols doptoros woirzp djjLOpcfcos 
vXt] xpo pov KaL doxrjpLaT lotos' e^eA/cuaaaa 8e 

1 Hartman (De Plvtarcho, p. 586), implied by the versions 
of Amyot and Xylander ; avrr) -X ; avr-q -all other mss. 

2 8c -omitted by J 1 , g. 

3 rod -omitted by £, Voss. 16, Escorial T-l 1-5, Bonon. 

4 dvov (i.e. avdpdiiTov) -J. 

5 S' -omitted by J 1 , g. 6 rd^ets -J 1 - 

a This practical identification of time w ith the activity of 
the rational world-soul prefigures the doctrine of Plotinus 
(e.g. Enn. in, vii, 12, lines 1-3 and 20-25 ; cf. II. Leisegang, 
Die Begriffe der Zeit und Ewigkeit ira apdteren Platonismus 
[Miinster i.W., 1913], pp. and 23-24; Thevenaz, L\4me 
d,u Monde, p. 96). It is with a very different emphasis upon 
the Platonic contrast of time and eternal being that Plutarch 
in De E 392 e makes his teacher, Ammonius, say: klvtjtov 
ydp rt Kal Kivovfidvy) ovu^ama^ojxevov v\jj . . . o xpovos, 
ov ye St) to fiev eireira Kal to irporepov . • • avroOev i^opLoXoyq- 
als €(jtl tov firf ovros (cf. C. Andresen, Logon und Xomos 
[Berlin, 1955], pp. 284-287). 

b Euripides, Troiades 887-888, adapted by Plutarch in De 
Jsids 381 b also (dyei$ -Euripides). 

c The definition is ascribed to Pythagoras in [Plutarch], 
De Placitis 898 c =Dox. Graeci, p. 386 a 13-15 (cf. 386 b 8-11 
[" Pythagoras . . . and similarly also Xenocrates "] and W. 
Burkert, Weisheit mid Wissenschaft [Nlirnberg, 1962], p. 57, 
n. 73) ; but Plutarch himself, ascribing it to Xenocrates, 
rejects it as a misinterpretation of the Timaeus (De An. Proc. 



being motion and order itself and symmetry, it is 
called time, 

For all that mortal is, 
Going his noiseless path, he guides aright. 6 

In fact, the ancients even held that the essence of 
soul is number itself moving itself. c That is just the 
reason too why Plato said that time had come to be 
simultaneously with heaven d but there had been 
motion even before the generation of the heaven/ 
Time there was not, however, for there was not 
order either or any measure or distinction / but mo- 
tion indeterminate, amorphous and unwrought mat- 
ter, as it were, of time ; but providence, 71 when 

in Timaeo 1012 d-f = Xenocrates, frag. 68 [Heinze] and 1013 
c-n), which may account for his vague ascription of it to 
" the ancients " here where he cites it as testimony in support 
of an interpretation {cf. Thevenaz, V Ame du Monde, p. 96). 

d Timaeus 38 r 6. 

e This refers, of course, to Timaeus 30 a 3-5 and 52 d — 
53 a ; cf De An. Proc. in Timaeo 1014 b, 1016 d-f, and 
1024 c. 

1 Cf. Macrobius, Sat. i, viii, ?("... cum chaos esset, 
tempora non fuisse, siquidem tempus est certa dimensio 
quae ex caeli conversione colligitur") ; and contrast the 
formula of Atticus (Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum iii, p. 37, 
12-13 [Diehl]) : XP° V0 $ ^ v fy Kat ^P® ovpavov yevevecos, reray- 
(jl€vos 8e XP° vo<s °vk V v ' 

In view of C. Andresen's misinterpretation {Logos und 
Nomos [Berlin, 1955], p. 285 and n. 28) it must be empha- 
sized that xpoVou depends upon vXr], which is modified by 
dpLop<j>os Kal daxr)^dri(TTos {cf* De An. Proc. in Timaeo 1014 
F : to tj]v v\t)v aet p.ev dfjLop<j)OV Kal dax^p-driorov vn avrov 

h Cf. €K -npovolas {De Facie 926 f), Kara. Qavp.aatcordTT)v 
-npovoiav (Albinus, Epitome xii, 1 =p. 67, 20 [Louis] =p. 167, 
10 [Hermann]) ; and [Plutarch], De Placitis 884 f {Dox. 
Graeci, p. 321 a 10-11) with Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum i, 
p. 415, 18-20 (Diehl). 



(1007) rrpovoia 1 /cat KaraAafiovoa 2 ttjv fiev vXrjv cr^/xaat 

TJ]V 8e KlVTjOlV 7T€pi68oL9 TTjV fJL€V KOG/JLOV a/JLCL TTjV 
Se XpoVOV i7TOL7)0€V. €IK0V€S* 6° €LGLV d'/X^O) TOV 

D 9eov, tt}s fiev ovaias 6 kov/jlos rrjs 8* dtoLorrjTos 
(p)* XP° vo $ * v Kwiqoti Kaddrrep Iv yeveazt, deos 6 
Koop,os. oOev ojjlov yeyovoras cfrrjolv ojjlov /cat Av- 
drjGtaOai rrdXw, 5 dv tis clvtovs KaraXapb^dvYj Averts- 
ov yap olov r (elvai)* xa/ots Xpovov to yevrjrov 7 
cocrrrep ovok to vorjrov alayvos? et /xe'AAet to fxev* 
del fxeveiv to Se jLt^SeVoTe §taAuea#at yiyvojievov. 
ovtojs ovv avayKaiav irpos tov ovpavov exojv 
ovfjL7rAoKrjV /cat ovvap\ioyr\v 6 xP ovo $ °^X drrAtbs 
ioTt 11 KtvqoLS dAAd tboirep €ipr)Tai klvtjois iv Ta£a 
fji€Tpov exovarj /cat TrepaTa /cat rrepioSovs' tov 6 

1 H. C. ; eViKrAuaacra 8' £v XP oa (^' * v XP® VCx) "**^*» % '•> 8' 
17 ra|ts -Escorial T-ll-5) -MSS. ; eWAcoaacra 8e Motpa -Em- 
perius (Op. PhiloL, p. 340) ; irnxXvawra 8* i? xo/rci'a -Apelt 
(Philologus, lxii [1903], p. 287); <^ oplaaa rj ipvxrj,> cy- 
KXeiaaoa 8' cv x^P a -Pohlenz. 

2 KdTafiaXovaa -X 1 ; TrepifiaXovoa -Escorial T-ll-5 ; Kara- 
paXXovcra -n ; KarafiaXovoa -all other mss. ; fiera^aXovaa 

8 Leonicus ; eucorcDS -mss. 

4 <o> -added by Stephanus. 

5 navra -J 1 ; navras ~g« 

• <€fvai> -added by Wyttenbach. 

7 yewTjrov -J, g. 8 avcu ai'awo ? -Escorial T-ll-5. 

9 \ikv -j6 2 (added superscript), Bonon., Voss. 16, Escorial 
T-ll-5; omitted by all other mss. 

10 ovv -omitted by g. 

11 ion -omitted by a, A, jS 1 (but added superscript), y, 
E, B, <-, n. 

a Cf. Quaest. Conviv. 719 E (. . . rod Xoyov KraraAa/ijSa- 
vovros aM]v . . .) and 1001 b-c supra with note /there. 

* This like [Plutarch], D* Placitis 881 a (Z>o#. 6?ra*c?, p. 
299 a 11-12) suggests a misinterpretation of Timaeus 92 c 7 



she took in tow and curbed matter with shapes a 
and motion with revolutions, simultaneously made 
of the former a universe and of the latter time. 
They are both semblances of god, the universe of his 
essence b and time a semblance in motion of his 
eternity, even as in the realm of becoming the uni- 
verse is god. d Hence he says e that, as they came 
into being together, together they will also be dis- 
solved again if any dissolution overtake them, for 
what is subject to generation cannot <be) apart from 
time just as what is intelligible cannot apart from 
eternity either if the latter is always to remain fixed 
and the former never to be dissolved in its process 
of becoming/ Time, then, since it is thus neces- 
sarily implicated and connected with the heaven, is 
not simply motion but, as has been said, motion in 
an orderly fashion that involves measure and limits 

or even the reading noi-qrov there instead of vor^rov (though 
the latter is implied by De hide 373 b, . . . eUova rod vorjrov 
Kootiov aladrjTov ovra) possibly supported by the misinterpre- 
tation of Timaeus 29 e 3 (cf De Sera Numinis Vindicta 550 
d and De An. Proc. in Timaeo 1014 b [. . . npos avrov 
iiofjLoicooiv . . .]) ; but it may also have been inferred that, 
since y events is an cikwv ovoias iv vXrj (De hide 372 f), if, as 
Plutarch proceeds to assert, the universe is god in the realm 
of yeveais (see note d infra), that of which it is the semblance 
must be god in the realm of ovaia. 

c Cf. Timaeus 37 d 5-7. Plutarch himself in De Defectu 
Orac. 422 b-c assigns eternity to the ideas (wept aura rod al- 
covos ovtos olov dnoppo-^v im rovs Koofiovs (f>€p€a6at rov xpovov) ; 
cf Albinus, Epitome xiv, 6 (p. 85, 5-6 [Louis] =p. 170, 21-23 

d Cf Timaeus 34 a 8-b 1 and b 8-9, 92 c 4-9, and Critias 
106 a 3-4 (one of the passages cited by Plutarch himself in 
De An. Proc. in Timaeo 1017 c). 

* Timaeus 38 b 6-7. 

' Cf Timaeus 27 b 6—28 a 4 and 38 c 1-3. 



(1007) rjXios €7Tiarar7}s a>v /cat gkottos 1 opi^iv /cat fipa- 
E jSeuetv /cat dvaSet/ciwat /cat at>a</>atVetv fiera/io- 
Ad? /cat wpas, at ndvra <f>€povoi /ca0' c H/>a/cActTov, 
oi) 2 (f>avXa)v ovSe puKpcbv dXXd tojv /xeytora>v /cat 
KVpLwrdrcDV ra> rjyepbovi /cat rrpcoToj* 6ea> ytyverai 


1. Wepl rcov rfjs foxfjs* Swaftecu^ iv IIoAtTeta 
TWarwvos tt)v rov XoyiartKov 5 koll dvpioeihovs 
/cat €7ridvpLr]TiKov crup,<j>u)VLav do/xovt'a 6 fiearjs /cat 
VTTarrjs /cat f^t^s' tiKaoavTos apiora SiaTTOprjcreiev 
dv tls TTorepov /card ttJs fieorjs to 0tyxo£tSes rj 
to XoyioTtKov 7 era^ev auTos 8 yap ev ye rourots" 
ou SeS^Aaj/cev. ^ fiev ovv /card tottov 9 tojv piepiov 
F rants' eiS ttjv ttJs" ix€or]s ^cupav rtflerat rd 6vp,o- 
etSes 1 rd Se Aoytart/cdv €tV r^y t^? V7rdTT]s. to 
yap dva) /cat 7rpa)Tov vttovtov 61 rraXaiol irpoa- 

1 <€7riTax0€k €irt><rK07ros -Reinhardt (Hermes, lxxvii 
[1949], p. 229, n. 1). 

2 ouSc -J 2 (§€ added superscript), a, A, ft 1 (hk erased -£ 2 ), 
y, E, B, c, n. 

3 Kal TTpdoroj -omitted by ^ ? kcu Trpayriara) -Escorial 

* 7T€pl ttjs *pvxns rcov -J 1 , g; nepl -deleted by Hartman 
(Be Plutarcho, p. 586). 

5 Bernardakis ; \oyiKov -mss. 

6 aptiovtav -B. 7 XoytKov -X, c, n. 

8 Wyttenbach (cf. 1001 d supra) ; outos -mss. 

9 kclto, rov tottov -Voss. 16, Escorial T-ll-5. 

a Cf. Homeric Hymn ii (Demeter), 62, cited by Hubert for 
okottos used of Helios. 

b Heraclitus, frag. B 100 (D.-K. and Walzer) =frag. 34 
(Bywater) with G. S. Kirk, Heraclitus: The Cosmic Frag- 
ments (Cambridge, 1954), pp. 294-305. 



and revolutions. The sun, being overseer and 
sentinel of these for defining and arbitrating and 
revealing and displaying changes and seasons which 
according to Heraclitus b bring all things, turns out 
to be collaborator with the sovereign and primary 
god c not in paltry or trivial matters but in those 
that are greatest and most important. 


1. About the faculties of the soul in the Republic, 
where d Plato likened excellently well the conson- 
ance of the rational and mettlesome and appetitive 
to a concord of intermediate and topmost and nether- 
most strings, e one might raise the question whether 
it is the mettlesome or the rational that he gave the 
rank of intermediate, for in this passage he has not 
made it clear himself. Now, the local disposition 
of the parts does put the mettlesome in the position 
of the intermediate and the rational in that of the 
topmost string. For what is above and first the 
ancients styled topmost/ even as Xenocrates calls 

e Cf. rov dva>TaTa> Ocov (1000 e [Question II init.] supra). 

d Republic 443 d 5-7. 

e The note of lowest pitch in the scale was called " top- 
most " (scil. string) ; and its octave, that of highest pitch, 
was called " nethermost " : cf. Nicomachus, Harmonices 
Man. 3 (Musici Scriptores Graeci, p. 241, 19-23 [Jan]) ; 
Theon Smyrnaeus, p. 51, 12-14 (Hiller) ; Chalcidius, Platonis 
Timaeus, p. Ill, 7-11 (Wrobel) =p. 93, 8-11 (Waszink) ; and 
Plutarch, De An. Proc. in Timaeo 1021 a infra (. . . fiapvTepov 
<f>Biy^€rai ws xmorrr] irpos mjrrjv . . . 6£vT€pov cos vrjrrj irpos 

* Cf. [Aristotle], De Mundo 397 b 24-26 ; Aristides 
Quintilianus, De Musica i, 6 (p. 8, 8-9 and 27-28 [Winning- 



(1007) rjyopevov fj 1 /cat 'EevoKpdrrjs Aia rov ev [lev 
rots 2 Kara ravrd /cat 3 djuavrojs eypvaiv VTrarov kol- 
Xel vearov he rov* vtto aeXrjvrjv, b 7rporepov 6 he 
"Ofirjpos rov ra>v dpxovrcov dpxovra 6eov vttcltov 
1008 Kpeiovratv Trpooelrre. /cat 7 Slkcllws tco KparL- 
aroj drrohehojKe rrjv dvw 8 ^wpav rj (f>vois, cbcnrep 
KvfiepvrjTrjv evchpvaaaa rfj Kec/xxAfj rov Xoyiajxov 
ecr^arov Se /cat vearov aTroiKioaoa rroppco ro 
eiriQvpjqriKov \ r\ ydp Kara) vedrr] rrpoaayopeverai 
rd^LSj &>s hrjXovow at ra>v veKpwv /cA^aa? veprepa>v 
Kal evepa)v Trpoaayopevofievojv evioi he /cat rtov 
dvefjiojv <f>aol rov Kara)6ev e/c rov d<f>avovs Trveovra 

1 fj -omitted by J 1 , g. 

2 TOV IL€V €V TOIS "J 1 * g ? TOV fJL€V TOLS "B. 

3 Kal -omitted by X ; Kara aura. Kal -y ; Kara. to. aura 
K al -all other MSS. 4 T 6 -J. 5 t?;v aeXrjvqv -E, B. 

6 TTporepov -X, a, e» n ; 7Tpa>Tov -J 1 , g ; npoTcpos -all 
other mss. 

7 *-cu -omitted by J 1 , g. 8 T ^ a^w -omitted by J 1 , g. 

a Xenocrates, frag. 18 (Ileinze). " Nethermost Zeus " is 
the chthonian Zeus or Hades (cf. Aeschylus, Supplices 156- 
158 and 230-231 [with E. Fraenkel on Agamemnon 1386- 
1387]; Euripides, frag. 912, 1-3 and 6-8 [Nauck, Trag. 
Graec. Frag. 2 , p. 655] ; Pausanias, ii, 24, 4 with Proclus, In 
Platonis Cratylum, pp. 83, 24-84, 1 [Pasquali]), whose 
domain, however, is no longer subterranean but is the whole 
sublunar region of the universe ((/. l)e Facie 942 f and 943 c 
[L.C.L. xii, p. 195, note d and p. 201, note c] ; P. Boyance, 
Bev. Etudes Grecques, lxv [1952], pp. 334-335 ; W. Burkert, 
Weisheit und Wissenschaft [Niirnberg, 1962], pp. 31 1-316). 
By " topmost Zeus " Xenocrates may have meant to refer 
to the monad which he is said to have given the station of 
father reigning iv ovpava> 9 to have styled Zeus and vovs, and 
to have regarded as Trp&ros 6e6s (frag. 15 [Heinze] =Dox. 
Graeci, p. 304 b 1-7). To establish strict correspondence 
between the present passage (frag. 18) and frags. 15 and 5, 
however, one must assume that Xenocrates posited a Zevs 



Zeus who is among things invariable and identical 
topmost but nethermost him who is beneath the 
moon a and earlier Homer styled the god who is 
ruler of rulers topmost of lords. 6 Nature has also 
duly assigned the position above to what is most ex- 
cellent by establishing the reason like a pilot in the 
head and making the appetitive part dwell last and 
nethermost in distant banishment/ For the station 
underneath is styled nethermost, as is made clear 
by the appellations of the dead, who are styled 
nether and infernal ; and some people say that of 
the winds too it is the one blowing from underneath 
out of the unseen pole d that has been named 

fxeoos also (cf. A. B. Krisehe, Die theologischen Lehren 
der griechlschen Denker [Gottingen, 1840], p. 324 ; H. J. 
Kramer, Der Ursprung der Geistmetaphysik [Amsterdam, 
1964], p. 37, n. 58 and p. 82, n. 209 ; H. Happ, Parusia: 
Festgabe fur Johannes Hirschberger [Frankfurt am Main, 
1965], p. 178, n. 101) ; and, had he done so, it is unlikely that 
Plutarch would have omitted mention of it in this context. 
In Qaaest. Conviv. 745 b the Delphian muses are said to have 
been named *T7rar^, Me'crry, and Necm? from the regions of 
the universe guarded by each of them and not — as, in fact, 
is asserted by Censorinus (frag. 12 = p. 65, 13-15 [Hultsch]) — 
from the musical notes or strings ; but, even if this passage 
too derived from Xenocrates (Heinze, Xenokrates, p. 76), the 
latter may well have treated Zeus only in his two commonly 
recognized aspects as vipLaros and xOovios (cf. Pausanias, ii, 

6 Iliad viii, 31 ; Odyssey i, 45 and 81 and xxiv, 473. 

c From Timaeus 44 d 3-6 and 69 d 6—71 a 3 (n.b. 70 e 
6-7), but the figure of reason as a pilot comes from Phaedrus 
247 c 7-8; cf. Albinus, Epitome xxiii (p. Ill [Louis] =p. 176, 
9-19 [Hermann]) and Apuleius, De Platone i, 13 (p. 97, 2-1 J 
[Thomas]) and Philo Jud., Leg. Allegor. iii, 115-118 (i, pp. 
138, 27-139, 17 [Cohn]). 

d Cf. [Aristotle], De Mundo 394 b 31-32 ; Joannes Lydus, 
De Mensibus iv, 119 (p. 157, 14-15 [Wuensch]). 



(1008) votov d)Vofida6ac. f\v ovv to eaxarov e^a 77-/06V 


tov Tavrrjv tov eTTidvpLrjTiKov rrpos to AoyioTiKov 
exovros, ovk euriv avcjoTara> fiev tlvai /cat npcorov 
virarov oe p/q etvcu to AoyioriKov aAAa erepov, 
B ol yap cos" Kvpiav ovvapuv avra> ttjv rfjs fieai^s 
GLTTohihovres dyvoovow on ttjv Kvpiwrepav dc^at- 
povvrai T7jv b rrjs V7rdrrjs t fxrjre rep dvpLW pbrjre rfj 
emdvpLLQ 7Tpooy]Kovaav' eKarepov yap dpx^odai 
Kal aKoAovdew ovSerepov S 5 dpx^iv rj 6 rjyeloOai, 

TOV XoyiOTLKOV 7T€(f)VK€V. €Tt Se fJL&AAoV TTJ (f)VG€L 

<f>av€irai to OvpuoeiSes tw tottcq ttjv pLeorjv ^X ov 
€K€lvojv Ta£iv 8, €i ye 8r] to) jitev 9 AoyiOTLKtp TO 
dpX €LV T( ? &* 6vjio€l§€l to dpx^odat Kal to 10 apx € w 
KaTa <f>vow eaTiVy VTrrjKou) fxev ovtl to£ Aoyiofiov 
KpaTovvTi 8e Kal KoAdt.ovTi ttjv einOvpLLav oTav 

1 €xct koX -J 1 , g. 

2 fx-q -omitted by J 1 , g. 

3 XoyiKov -J, g. 

4 After these words at the end of folio 6 v the remainder 
of n from ot yap is by a different hand. 

6 ttjv -omitted by J\ g (dt/xupovvra ttjv -Bonon.). 

6 7) -omitted by J, g. 

7 <rj> ra> totto) -Hubert. 

8 rdgiv -omitted by Voss. 16, Escorial T-ll-5. 

9 iMtv -omitted by J 1 , g. 

10 apxeodai Kal to -omitted by J 1 , g. 

° The derivation of voros (the" moist " wind or rain-wind) 
from vcarosi as false as would be that of "thunder" from 
" under," is probably reflected in tov votov ttvzovtos oltto 
twv Karw tottojv of Heracliti Quaest tones Homer icae 47 (cf. 
Hermias, In Platonis Phoedrvm^ p. 29, 7-8 [Couvreur]) and 
in " Auster . . . qui et Notus, ex humili flans, . . ." of Isidore 
(De Natura Eervm xxxvii, 3) and persists in the etymological 
verses of Johannes Mauropus (R. fteitzenstein, Gesrhichte der 
griechischen Etymologika [Leipzig, 1897], p. 174, lines 37-38). 



thunder-gust. a Since, then, the opposition of last 
to first and of nethermost to topmost is the relation 
in which the appetitive part stands to the rational, 
it is not possible for the rational to be furthest above 
and first and yet for another than it to be topmost. 
For those who assign it the role of the intermediate 
on the ground that this is a sovereign function b fail 
to understand that they are eliminating the more 
sovereign function of the topmost, which befits 
neither mettle nor appetite, for to be ruled and to 
follow is natural to either of these but to rule or to 
lead the rational is natural to neither. From their 
nature it will be still more apparent that the mettle- 
some part has the locally intermediate station among 
them, d if in fact ruling is natural to the rational but 
being ruled and ruling to the mettlesome, which, 
while obedient to the reason, dominates and chastises 
the appetite whenever it disobeys the reason/ Also, 

b Cf 1009 a infra : -njy Se npwTTjv l^ct koX KvpLajTarr^v 

hvVCLlUV U)S fl€OT}. . . . 

c Cf. Be Virtute Morali 142 a with Plato, Republic 141 
e 4 — 442 d 1 ; and De Virtute Morali 442 c (to Se 7TadrjTiK6v 
. . . rod Xoyi£,o/j,€vov kcu <f>povovvros eloaKovtiv . • • kcll vtt€lk€lv 
. . . 7T€<f>vK€v) with Aristotle, Eth. Nic. 1102 b 25-31, with 
Eth. End. 1219 b 28-31, and with Iamblichus, Protrepticus, 
p. 41,20-22 (Pistelli). 

d The argument, which hitherto has turned on the meaning 
of vtrarov and veWov, now is based upon the nature of the 
parts of the soul ; but its purpose is still to prove that the 
mettlesome part is in the locally middle position of the three. 
Hubert was mistaken, therefore, in wishing to construe ra> 
t6ttu> as an " instrumental " in comparison with rfj <f>va€i and 
in emending the text to this end. 

• Cf Proclus, In Platonis Rem Ptiblicam i, pp. 211, 7-212, 
20 (Kroll) and Stobaeus, Eel. i, 49, 27 (p. 355, 10-12 [Wachs- 
muth]) ; and for the characterization of the mettlesome part 
cf. Plato, Republic 441 e 5-G and Timaeus 70 a 2-7. 



(1008) <x7ra9fj to) AoyiGfjLtp. ml 1 Kadairep ev ypd/xfiaai 
Ta vjntycova /xeW 2 rcbv a<f)u)V(x)v iari /cat r&v 
C (jxjDvrjevTcov rw ttX4ov €K€lvojv rjX € w 3 zXclttov Se 
tovtojv, ovtojs lv rfj ifruxfj T °v dvOpojirov to Ov/ao- 
aSes ovk aKpdrajs rradrjTiKov eoriv aAAa <f>avra- 
alav kolXov noXXaKis e^et fxefityfjiev^v dAdya/ ttJ 5 
rrjs Tifxajpias 6 6pe£ei. 7 /cat YlXdrcov avros eiKaaas 
ovfjL<j)VTci) t^evyei koX r\vi6yw to ttjs fax^s €i8os 
rjvtoxov p,4v, ojs 7tolvtI SrjXov, aTrirfyrji/e to XoyioTi- 

KOV TOiV §6 ItTTTOJV TO JJL6V 7T€pl TOLS* £Tridvp,iaS 

airziOes Kal avayojyov TravTamaai rrepl c5ra Aa- 

GtOV, 9 KOJ(f)6v, fldoTiyi fJL€TOL K€VTpOJV flOyiS™ V7T€l- 

kov to 8e 6v[JLoei8ks evrjviov Ta 7roAAd Ttb Xoyia\i(h 

/cat avfjifjiaxov. 11 cocnrep ovv avvojplSos ovx 6 

D rjvloxos eoTiv dpeTjj /cat StW/xet fxeoos aAAd tcvv 

Ittttojv 6 (f>avXoT€pos [lev tov rjvioxov fSeXTiojv Se 

TOV OflO^VyOV, OVTOJ T7)S faxVS °V T <p 12 KpaTOVVTl 

tt]V p,ecrrjv iz aTT€V€ip,€ tol^lv aAAa a> 7rd0ovs {lev 

1 Kal -omitted by J 1 , g, a 1 . 

2 Kal (instead of fxioa) -J 1 , g. 

3 Leonicus ; e^etv -mss. 

4 Xylander, Step nanus ; dX6ya>s -mss. 

5 rfj -omitted by J 1 , g, n. 

6 tuoplas -A, £, E, B, Voss. 16, Escorial T-ll-5, Bonon. 

7 #« -B. 

8 tcls -omitted by g. 

. 9 7T€pl <L raXdaiov -J ; 7T€pi T<x coxa Xdaiov -y. 

10 fjLoyts' -J, g (so Plato, Phaedrus 253 e 4) ; poXcs -all 
other mss. 

11 Kal avfifiaxov tco XoyLGfiw -B ; Kal Xoyiafico avfj,(j,axov -n. 

12 outco n. 

13 r-qv ttjs fJLearjs -X, J, g, j3 2 . 

a Cf. Quaest. Conviv. 738 d-e ; Plato, Vhilebu* 18 b 8-c 6 
(tt.6. ret re d<j>6oyya Kal d(f>ojva . • . Kal to (^covrjevra Kal rd 
fjudoa) with Cratylus 424 c 5-8 and Theaetetus 203 b 2-7. 



just as among letters the semivowels are inter- 
mediate between the mutes and the vowels by having 
more sound than the former and less than the latter, 
so in the soul of man the mettlesome part is not 
purely affective but frequently has a mental image 
of what is fair, 5 though one commingled with what 
is irrational, the yearning for retribution. Plato 
too, when he likened the structure of the soul to a 
composite of team and charioteer,^ represented, as 
is clear to everyone, the rational part as charioteer 
and in the team of horses represented as shaggy 
about the ears, deaf, scarcely yielding to whip and 
goads e the contumacy and utter indiscipline of the 
appetites but the mettlesome part as mostly tract- 
able to the reason and allied with it/ Now, as in the 
car and pair it is not the charioteer that is inter- 
mediate in virtue and function but that one of the 
horses which is worse than the charioteer but better 
than its yoke-fellow, so in the soul Plato allotted the 
intermediate station not to the dominant part but 

b Cf. 6 Ovfios vncpooq. pkv acvfiaros els daajfiarov 8e dyaOov 
p\e7T€i ttjv Tijxyv (Proclus, In Platonis Rem Publicum, i, p. 
235, 16-18 [Kroll] with i, p. 211, 25-26 and p. 225, 27-30 and 
p. 226, 13-17 [Kroll]). 

c Cf. opcgis Tifia)pr)TiK-q (Proclus, In Platonis Rem Publicum 
i, p. 208, 14-18 [Kroll]) and to avriXviTrjoccos opiytodai (ibid.) 
with Plutarch, t)e Virtute Morali 442 b (opefiv avTiXvnrjoecDs) 
and Aristotle, De Anima 403 a 30-31. 

d Phaedrus 246 a 6-7. 

• Phaedrus 253 e 4-5. 

f In Phaedrus 247 b 2 the vehicles of the gods are called 
€vt)vigl and in Republic 441 e 5-6 the mettlesome part of the 
soul is characterized as vtttJkoov /cat crvfxuaxov rod XoyioriKov 
(see note e on 1008 b supra) ; but in the Phaedrus these terms 
are not used of the nobler horse, though he is said to be 
evneid-qs rco r)vi6x^ {Rhaedrus 254 a 1) and to be guided 
KeXevcrfxart fiovov kolI Xoy cj (253 D 7-E 1). 



(1008) fjTTOv 1 rj to) (rplroj jjl&XXov S' t) toj) 2 TTpojrcp 
Xoyov Se fxdXXov fj ra> rpircp (rjrrov 8* 77 rep 

7Tp<A)Ttpy jJL€T€OTW. (LVT7) yap 7) rd^lS Kdl T7)V 

rwv av/x^ajvicov dvaXoyiav (frvXarrtt, rov fiev dvp,o- 
eiSovs irpos ro XoyiariKov* cos virdrrjv ro oia tcct- 
odpcov Trpos 8e 5 ro ^mdvp^riKov cos vrjrrjv ro 8id 
rrevre rov oe XoyioriKov nrpos 6 ro iiridvpLrjriKov 
cu9 virdri) 1 npos vqrrjv ro 8td iraoayv. idv 8e rov 
Xoyiofiov ets ro p,ecrov ^XKOJfxev, earai rrXtov 6 
E Ovpiog dnexoov rfjs €7n6v{ilas y ov* evioi rwv <f>iXo- 
o6(f>cov imdv/JLia ravrov etvai Sta opLOiorrjra vo- 

2. *H to pL€V rots roirois a7TOvepL€iv 9 ra Trpcora 
/cat ra /icaa /cat ra reXevrala yeXolov iortv, avrrjv 
rrjv VTrarqv opoovras ev p,ev Avpa rov avojraroo 
/cat TTpcorov iv 8 avXols rov /caroj /cat rov reXev- 

1 7tX4ov -Emperius (Op, PhiloL* p. 340). 

2 <. . .> -added by Wyttenbach. 

3 <. . .> -added by Wyttenbach. 
* XoyiKQv -a, A, jS 1 , E, B, e. 

5 8e -omitted by J 1 , g. 

6 Trpos -omitted by J, g ; ro Se XoyioriKov irpos -Escorial 
T-ll-5. 7 vTrdrr}v -B. 

8 wv -n, Voss. 16, Bonon. 

9 y€/x€tv -X. 

10 cv /i€»> ti; Aupa -J, g. 

11 dvarrcpov -J , g ; rcpov superscript over ojtol -X 1 . 

a Proclus (/w Platonis Rem Publicam i, pp. 212, 26-213. 
1 6 [Kroll]) also makes the mettlesome part intermediate ; but 
according to him its relation to the rational part is that of the 
fifth and to the appetitive that of the fourth, which implies 
that the appetitive part is v-rrdrr^ and the rational part vrjT-q 
(cf. e.g. De An. Proc. in Timaeo 1019 d-e infra), the argument 
for this being that, while it makes the interval between 
mettlesome and rational greater than that between mettle- 



to that in which the affective component is less than 
in the (third but greater than in the) first and the 
component of reason greater than in the third (but 
less than in the first). The fact is that this disposi- 
tion also preserves the proportion of the conson- 
ances, of the mettlesome to the rational as topmost 
string the fourth and to the appetitive as nethermost 
the fifth and of the rational to the appetitive as top- 
most to nethermost the octave ° ; but if we pull the 
reason into the middle, it will remove to a greater 
distance from the appetite the mettle, which because 
of its similarity to appetite some of the philosophers 
believe to be identical with it. 6 

2. Or c is it ridiculous to allot to local positions 
the status of first and intermediate and last, seeing 
that the topmost itself, while on the lyre it occupies 
the position furthest above and first, on the pipes 
occupies the one underneath and last d and that the 

some and appetitive, it preserves the greater consonance of 
the mettlesome with the rational, the fifth being fxdXXov 
avfjL(j>ajvia than the fourth. Yet elsewhere, in the divine ap/Movta 
of mind, soul, and body it is owfia that is vt^ttj and vovs that 
is xmarr) to the pear) of soul ( In Platonis Rem Publicam ii, 
p. 4, 15-21 [Kroll]). 

b Cf. De Virtute Morali 442 b (' ApicToreX-qs ... to fiev 
flu/xoeiSc? toj imdvurniKuj TTpoacvcifjitv J)S €77i0u/uav tlvcl top Ovfiov 
ovra . . .). It is less likely that Plutarch had in mind here such 
classifications as those of S.V.F. hi, frag. 396, to which 
Hubert refers, especially since what he emphasizes as 
characteristic of Stoic doctrine is the denial that to nadriTiKov 
Krai dXoyov is distinct from to XoyiKOv (De Virtute Morali 
441 c-d and 446 f — 447 a, De Sollertia Animalium 961 d, 
De An. Proc. in Timaeo 1025 d). 

e See note c on 1003 a supra and note c on De Comm. Not. 
1075 f infra. 

d Cf. Aelian Platonicus quoted by Porphyry, In Ptole- 
maei Harmonica, p. 34, 22-28 (Diiring). 



(1008) ralov errexovoav 1 en Se ttju fxea-qv, ev <L ns aV 2 
Xwpty T fjs Xvpas Oefxevos (boavrcDS apfjLOGrjrai, 3 
(f)8eyyojjiev7]v o^vrepov /xe> vrrdrr^g fiapvTepov Se 
vrjTrj? ; kolI yap ocf)6aXpi6s ovk ev ttclvtl ^cooj ttjv 
avri)v e\ei tol^cv, ev ttclvti Se Kal iravTaxov 
K€ifjL€vos Kara (f)vatv opav ofiolojs ire^vKev. looirep 
F ovv 6 iraiSayojyos ov irpooQev aAA oirioQev j8aSi£cov 4 
dye iv Xeyerai, kcli 6 rtbv Tpwcov crrparrjyo^ 

ore fiev re jxera b TTpuyroiai <f>dveoKev 
aAAore 8' ev Trvfidroicn KeXevcov 

eKarepwOc 6 S' rjv TTpayros Kal rrjv irpojTiqv hvvapuv 
efyev, ovtoj rd rrjs ^v%^ p>6pia Set fir] tois tottols 
KaTafita^eoOcn, fjbrjSe tols ovofxaacv dXXd rrjv Svva- 
1009 M lv KaL T V V dvaXoyiav e|era£eu>. to yap Trj deaei 
7Tpa>rov lopvoOai to XoyiGTiKov ev tco aajfiaTL tov 
dvdpwTTOv KaTa crutifieprjKos eoTC tt)v Se 7rpa)T7)v 
eyei koX KvpicoTaTTjv hvvapuv d>s fiearj npog vnaT-qv 
jtiev to eTndvfJLrjTLKov vrjTrjv Se to OvfioeiSes, tw 7 
XaXdv Kal eiriTeLveiv /cat oXojs avvcoSa Kal gvjjl- 
(f>a>va TTOielv e/carepou ttjv VTrepfioXrjv d<f>aip<jov Kal 
7rdXiv ovk ewv avieodai iravTauaGiv ov8e Kara- 
SapOdvew to yap p,eTpiov Kai to* ovfifieTpov 

1 TeAevTcuov , airo(f)alvovTa -n. 

2 ivaxJT) av -J 1 , g. 

3 Boito woavrcos apfMooerai -Escorial T-ll-5. 

4 aAA' efjL7rpOG0€V /taoYfeiv -J 1 , g. 

5 ot€ . . . vac. 5 . . . /nerd -J 1 ; ore /Lterd -g (no lacuna 
indicated) ; oVc pev /Lterd -B. 

6 iKareptoOev -€, Escorial T-ll-5 ; eVareotoflc -n, Voss. 16. 

7 rd -J» g, a, A, y, E, B, e. 

8 rd -omitted by g. 



intermediate moreover, wherever it is located on the 
lyre, if tuned in the same way, sounds higher than 
the topmost string and lower than the nethermost ? a 
For the situation of the eye too is not the same in 
every animal ; but, as in all and everywhere it is 
naturally placed, seeing is similarly natural to it. b 
As, then, the children's tutor is said to lead, though 
he walks behind them and not before, and the general 
of the Trojans 

Now would appear in the foremost ranks of the battle, 
Then in the rearmost, urging them forward/ 

but in either place was first and had the foremost 
function, so the parts of the soul must not be con- 
strained by location or by nomenclature but their 
function and their proportion must be scrutinized. 
In fact it is incidental that in the body of man the 
rational part has been situated as first in local posi- 
tion ; but the foremost and most sovereign function 
belongs to it as intermediate in relation to the ap- 
petitive as topmost and to the mettlesome as nether- 
most inasmuch as it slackens and tightens and 
generally makes them harmonious and concordant 
by removing the excess from either and again not 
permitting them to relax entirely and to fall asleep,** 
for the moderate and the commensurate 6 are 

° Cf. Be Virtute Morali 444 e-f ; Aristotle, Physics 224 
b 33-34 ; Chalcidius, Platonis Timaeus, p. 106, 13-17 
(Wrobel)=:p. 89, 10-14 (Waszink). 

> Cf Be Facie 927 d— 928 b. 

c Iliad xi, 64-65. 

d Cf. Be Virtute Morali 444 c ; Plato, Republic 441 e 9 — 
442 a 2. 

* Cf. Plato, Philebus 64 e 6 (ficTpLorqs Kal avfifJi€Tpia) and 
66 a 6-b 1 (summarized by Plutarch, Be E 391 c-d), where 
to ix€Tptov is prior to to avfificrpov. 



(1009) opt^erat fieoorrjri. 1 fi&XXov Se tovto 2 re'Aos 3 earl 
rrjs rod Xoyov Svvdfieojs, pLeooTrjTas* iv tols 
Tradeot 7toi€lv, as Upas koXovoi (pvv)ovaias / 
B exovaas rrjv tcov aKpojv rrpos rov Xoyov Kal TTpos 
dXXrjXa Std rov Xoyov ovyKpaaw.* ov yap r) 
ovvuipls [lioov eyjci ra>v VTro^vyiojv to KpelrTOV, 
ov8e rr)v rjvioxetav aKpoTrjra dereov aXXd jjLeoorrjTa 
rrjs €V o^vrrjTi Kal fipaSvrfJTL rcov Ittttojv dfierptas, 
tboTTep r) rod Xoyov 7 ovvapus avTiXapLfSavopievrf 
Kivovfidvojv dXoyojs tojv rrad&v Kal ovvapfjLor- 
rovoa rrepl avrr)v els to fierpiov, 9 iXXelijjeojs Kal 
VTrepfioXfjs jJLeoorrjra, Kadiorrjoiv. 

1 jj.€aoT7]Ta -J 1 * g". 

2 Sc avro tovto -n, Voss. 16, Escorial T-ll-5, Bonon. ; 
avTo t€ (superscript after touto) -j3 2 . 

3 t4\os implied by Amyot's version, Wyttenbach (avTo 
tovto tcXos) ; aTeXes (aTaXes -Voss. 16) -mss. 

4 owdfiews, to? fjLCOOTrjTas E, B. 

5 H. C. ; koXovoiv ovotas -mss. ; koXovol Kal oolas -Em- 
perius (Op. PkiloL, p. 340), and implied by Amyot's version. 

8 ovyKpiv€iv -g. 7 rjXiov -J 1 * g. 

8 avriXa^avoiiivovs -n, Voss. 16, Escorial T-ll-5. 

9 to fitTpiov -deleted by Hartman (De Plutarcho, p. 586). 

a Cf. Albinus, Epitome xxx, 6 (p. 151, 4-7 [Louis] =p. 184, 
27-30 [Hermann]). 

b Cf De Virtute Moral i 443 c-o (. . . rov Xoyov . . . opov 

TLVCL Kal T<l£lV €1TlTld€VTOS aVTtp Kal TCLS TjOlKCLS dp€T(ig, . . . GV/jL- 



defined by a mean a — or rather this is the purpose of 
the faculty of reason, to produce in the affections 
means, 6 which are called c sacred unions because 
they involve the combination of the extremes with 
the ratio and through the ratio with each other. d 
For in the case of the car and pair it is not the 
better of the yoked beasts that is intermediate, and 
the management of the reins must be reckoned not as 
an extreme but as a mean between the immoder- 
ate keenness and sluggishness of the horses, just as 
the faculty of reason, laying hold of the affections 
when they are in irrational motion and ranging 
them in concord about herself, reduces them to mo- 
deration/ a mean between deficiency and excess/ 

(jL€Tpias 7Ta0a>v teal fxeaorrjTas, i^nroiovvTOs) and 444 c (. . . e/x- 
Troi€t tols riducas dp€Tas 7T€pi to dXoyov . . . fi€aoT7jTas ovaas)' 

e I am unable to identify the subject of koXovoi. 

d Cf. Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum ii, p. 22, 22-26 (Diehl) : 
touto (scil, to pdoov) yap ion hi ov naoa dvaXoyla avviarr)K€, 
avvdyov tovs aKpovs Kara tov Xoyov kcu oia-nopd^ievov tov Aoyov 
otto rijs irepas ovvdfieais €7rl ti)v Xonrqv . . . oV auroO yap 7) 
dvaXoyla ovvoel tovs aKpovs. 

e Cf. Be Virtute Moral i 444 b, 445 a (. . . c& to ptTpiov . . . 
KaBioTaoa rcov nadwv €KaoTOv), 451 F (. . . iyycvoficvrjs xrno Xoyov 
Tats nadrjTiKais ovvdweoi Kal klvtJo€oiv imeiKelas Kal fi(Tpi6r7)TOs) . 

f Cf. [Plato], Definitions 415 a 4 (fUrpiov to p.4oov 
vncpPoXrjs Kal cXXetyctos) ; Aristotle, Be Part. Animal. 652 
b 17-19 and Politics 1295 b 4 ; Plutarch, Quomodo Quis 
Suos in Virtute Sentiat Profectus 84 a (. . . els to /lic'oov 
KaOloTaodaL Kal ^leVoiov). 



(1009) ZHTHMA I' 

1. Aid ri IlAartuv €ltt€ rov Xoyov eef ovofidrajv 

/cat prjfjidrcov Ktpdvvvadcu ; So/c£t yap iravra 1 

7tXt)v Svelv tovtojv tol fi€pr] rod Xoyov IlAaTCDVa 

[lev fxedeZvaL "Ofirjpov Se /cat 2 veavievodp,evov etV 

C eva orLyov ififiaXeiv arravra rovrov 

avros Itbv* KXiatrjvSe, ro gov ye pas ' 6(/>p 9 ev 

/cat yap avrajvufXia /cat pLero^j] Kal ovopa /cat 
prjfia /cat rrpoOeois /cat apdpov /cat orvvSeafios /cat 
€7TLpprjfjLa eWoTt* to yap " Se n jxopiov vvv dvrl 
rrjs " els " Trpodecreios reraKrai' to ydp " /cAt- 
atrjvSe " roiovrov Igtiv olov to " 'Adrjva^e" tl 5 
St) prrreov vrrep rod nAaTOJVos" ; 

11 oTt 7Tpu)TOv Aoyov OL TTaAaiOL TTjV rore 

1 ndvTa -omitted by g. 

2 H. C. (fiedeivai -R. G. Bury, iVoc. Cambridge PkiloL 
Soc. for 1950-1951, N.S. 1, p. 31) ; Ao'yov ^yjdev "Ofirjpov oc 
Kal -Jj g ; Aoyov (ji€pu>v fiyOev a/xa /cat -X, £, c, n, Voss. 16, 
Bonon. ; Xoyov piepwv pu-qdev apua . . . vac. 13 . . . Kal -E ; 
Aoyov • • • vac. 33 -a (erasure), 27 -A, 28 -y, 34- -B . . . K a\ i 
Xoyov TTapaXnrovTa firjdev Kal -Escorial T-ll-5. 

3 avros" Se Icbv -J. 4 et'Scu? -X. 

6 to -J 1 , g. 6 r) -mss. ; 7? -Diibner. 

7 7rpo)Tov -omitted by J 1 , g ; npcorov on -£ 2 , n, Voss. 16, 
Bonon., Escorial T-ll-5. 

° This question is translated and discussed by J. J. Hart- 
man in De Avondzon des Heidendoms (Leiden, 1910), ii, 
pp. 22-30 and translated in part by A. von Mori in Die 
Grqsse Weltordnung ( Berlin/ Wien/Leipzig, 1948), ii, pp. 
85-89 ; it is commented on in detail by O. Goldi, Plutarch* 
sprachliche Interessen (Diss. Zurich, 1922), pp. 2-10. 

b Sophist 262 c 2-7 ; cf. Cratylus 425 a 1-5 and 431 B o-c 
1, Theaetetus 206 d 1-5, and [Plato], Epistle vii, 342 b 6-7 and 
343 b 4-5 ; O. Apelt, Platonis Sophista (Lipsiae, 1897), 




1. What was Plato's reason for saying b that speech 
is a blend of nouns and verbs ? For it seems that 
except for these two Plato dismissed all the parts 
of speech whereas Homer in his exuberance went so 
far as to pack all together into a single line, the 
following : 

Tentward going myself take the guerdon that well you 
may know it. c 

In this there are in fact a pronoun and participle 
and noun and verb and preposition and article and 
conjunction and adverb, d for the suffix " ward " has 
here been put in place of the preposition " to," the 
expression " tentward " being of the same kind as 
the expression " Athensward." e What, then, is to 
be said on behalf of Plato ? 

Or' is it that the ancients styled "primary 

p. 189 and F. M. (ornford, Plato's Theory of Knowledge 
(London, 1935), pp. 307-808. 

■ Iliad i, 185. 

d For these eight parts of speech cf. Dionysius Thrax, Am 
(Jrammatica § 11 (p. 23 1-2 [Uhlig]). As the Homeric line 
containing all of them the grammarians cite Iliad xxii, 59 
(Scholia in Dionysii Thracis Artem Grammaticam, p. 58, 
13-19 and p. 357, 29-36 [Hilgard] ; Eustathius, Commentarii 
ad Homeri Iliadem 1256, 60-61) ; and there the noun is 
bvornvov, for the adjective (" noun adjective " in older 
grammars [cf. O.E.D. s.v. " noun " 3]) was considered to be 
a kind of noun, ovofia cmOerov (Dionysius Thrax, op. cit., 
§ 12 fp. 33, 1 and pp. 34, 3-35, 2] with Scholia . . ., p. 233, 
7-33 and p. 553, 11-17; cf. H. Steinthal, Geschichte der 
Sprachwissenschaft bei den Griechen und Romern 2 , ii [Ber- 
lin, 1891], pp. 251-256). 

« Cf. Etym. Magnum 761, 30-32 and 809, 8-9 (Gaisford) 
and further for popiov as " prefix M or " suffix " 141, 47-52. 

' See 1003 a and 1008 e supra and note c on De Comm. 
Not. 1075 f infra. 



(1009) KaXovfievrjv jrporaoiv 1 vvv S' d£ia)/za Trpoo7)y6- 

pcvov, o TTpwTov XeyovTes dXrjdevovoiv rj ifjevoov- 

rcu ; tovto 8' e£ ovofiaros Kal prjfiaros ovvi- 

arrjKev, cov to /xev tttcoglv ol SiaXeKTtKol to §€ 

D KaTr)y6pr)p,a kclXovolv. aKOvoavTes yap on 2oj- 

KpaTrjs <f>iXooo(f)el Kal nrdXiv oti Sco/cpaTTj? 7T€T€- 

rat, 2 tov /xev dXrjdrj Xoyov zlvai tov he ipevSTJ 

<f>rjOO}xev, ovhevos aAAou rrpoohe-qOevTes. Kal yap 

€lkos dvdpwnovs iv X? €ia Aoyov to npajTov* Kal 

(f>ojvrjs evdpdpov yeveodai, tols t€ irpd^eis Kal 

tovs TrpaTTOvras auras' Kal rd iraQy) Kal tovs 

7rdoxovTas dXXtfXois oiaoa<f>elv Kal drroorjixaivetv 

fiovXofievovs . cirel toivvv tw jxev p-qfiaTt to. 

1 Trp6<t>a<nv -J 1 , g. 2 iT€T€Ta<, -Pohlenz ; rpcTrcrat -mss. 
8 to iTpwrov iv xp* ta Xoyov -J 1 ? g ; to Trp&Tov -omitted 
by a 1 . 

a Plato, Sophist 262 c 6-7 (to>v Xoyojp o np&Tos T€ Kal 
gjjukdotcltos) &nd 9~l0 (Xoyov . • ♦ iXdxtcrrov T€ Kal yrpajTOv) ; 
cf. Ammonius, Zte Interpretatione, p. 67, 20-30 and pp. 78, 
29-79, 9. 

b Cf. [Apuleius], Il€f)l eppL-qvetas i (pp. 176, 15-177, 2 
[Thomas]) ; Galen, Institutio Logica i, 5 (with J. Mau's note 
ad loc, Galen, Einfuhrung in die Logik [Berlin, 1960], pp. 
3-4) ; and Proclus, In Primum Euclidis El. Lib., pp. 193, 
18-194, 4 ( Fried lein). For npoTaats used in the general sense 
of " proposition " cf. Albinus, Epitome vi, 1 and 3 (p. 29, 
1-4 and 19-20 [Louis] = p. 158, 4-7 and 21-22 [Hermann]) and 
Aristotle himself (Anal. Prior. 24 a 16-17 with Alexander, 
Anal. Prior., p. 44, 16-23) ; and for aijlwfxa as the Stoic term 
for this cf. besides the passage of Proclus just cited Ammo- 
nius, De Interpretatione, p. 2, 26 and Mates, Stoic Logic, 
pp. 27-33 and p. 132, s.v. o£iayta. 

• Plato, Sophist 262 e 8-9 and 263 a 11-b 3; cf. [Apu- 
leius], Uepl cpprjiKtas iv (p. 178, 1-7 [Thomas]) and Ammo- 
nius, De Interpretatione, p. 18, 2-22 and pp. 26, 31-27, 4. It 



speech " a what then was called a pronouncement 
and now is called a proposition, 6 that in the enuncia- 
tion of which a truth or falsehood is first expressed ? c 
And this consists of a noun and a verb, the former 
of which the dialecticians call subject and the latter 
predicate.** For upon hearing " Socrates philoso- 
phizes " and again " Socrates flies " we should say 
without requiring anything else besides that the 
former is true speech and the latter false. e More- 
over, it is likely that men first felt need of speech 
and articulate sound f in desiring to designate and 
make quite clear to one another actions and their 
agents and patients and what they undergo. Since, 
then, with the verb we do make adequately clear 

was express Stoic doctrine that every proposition is either 
true or false (cf. Mates, Stoic Logic, pp. 28-29). 

4 Cf. [Apuleius], Uepl ipprivcias iv (p. 178, 12-15 
[Thomas]) ; Martianus Capella, iv, 393 ; and Mates, Stoic 
Logic, pp. 16-17 with notes 34-41 and p. 25 with notes 79-81. 
Notice the difference between Diogenes Laertius, vii, 58 and 
Plutarch's statement (Mates, p. 16, n. 34) ; and with tttwgis 
as used by Plutarch here cf, besides Sextus, Adv. Math, xi, 
29 (Mates, p. 17, n. 40) Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 
vin, ix, 26, 4-5, cited by Pearson (Fragments, p. 75) in con- 
nexion with Stobaeus, Eel. i, 12, 3 (p. 137, 3-6 [Wachsmuth]) 
= S. V.F. i, p. 19, 24-26. ol SiclXcktikoI in the present passage 
as in 1011 a and 1011 o infra are the Stoics (cf. Aulus 
Gellius, xvi, viii, 1 and 8 ; Sextus, Pyrrh. Hyp. ii, 146 and 
247 and Adv. Math, viii, 93; Cicero, Acad. Prior, ii, 97; 
and see note d on De Stoic. Repug. 1045 r infra). 

• Plato, Sophist 263 a 8-b 3. 

' i.e. \6yos in the sense of speech. Cf. De SoUertia 
Animalium 973 a (irpo<f>opLKov Xoyov Kal <f>a)vr}s ivdpdpov) with 
S. V.F. ii, p. 43, 18-20 (ra> irpo<f>opiKa) Xoytp = ivdpdpovs <f>ajvds 
[but in S.V.F. iii, p. 215, 35-36 4j ar)p.alvovaa evapdpos 
(fxavrf, with which cf S.V.F. ii, frag. 143]); and De An. 
Proc. in Timaeo 1026 a (\6yos 8e Acfu eV (fxovTJ o-qfiavrriKr} 



(1009) TTpdy/jLara Kdl ra 1 Trddr] rco 8' ovojjlolti tovs Trpdr- 
tovtols avra Kdl ndaxovTds dTroxpojVTOJS SrjAou/xev, 
co? 2 avTos eiprjKe, ravra arqfiawew eSofe 3 * ra S' 
d'AAa (f>airj tls olv ov orjixaiv€iv, olov oi (jrevayfiol 

E Kdl oXoXvyjJLol TtOV VTTOKpLTCJV Kdl V7) Aid TToX- 
XdKlS* €7TLfJL€L8ldacS & Kdl* OL7TOGLOJ7T7]OIS €jJL(f>dVTl- 

Kwrepov TTOtet tov Xoyov, ov firjv dvdyKdidv 1 £;\;ei 8 
7rpos to crrjfjLdivetv co? to pfjfJLd Kdl rovvofid 
SvvdjjLiv dAA' eTriOerov rivd iroiKiXXovodv tov Xoyov 

Kdl TCLS 8dOVT7]TdS dVTCOV €KTdO€lS 9 T€ Kdl 

avoToXds ivtojv aura Kdd* aura 10 otolx^lcl rcdefxe- 

VOL, 7Tddr) fJL&XXov OVTd Kdl OVfJL^e^rjKOTd 11 Kdl 

8id<f>opds 12 oTOLxdojv, ojs iSrjXcoadv ol 7raAcuo£ 13 

Sid TCOV €KKdlS€Kd (f>pdt,OVT€S dTTOXpo>VTOJS Kdl 1 * 

2. v E7r€ira oKorret (jltj TrdpdKovojfjLev tov ElAaTCU- 
F vos, €K tovtcov KepdvwoOdi tov Xoyov ov oid 

1 T a -omitted by J 1 , g. 

2 /cat -€• 3 tvho£os -J 1 , g- 

4 ota noXXa rroAAa/ci? -X. 5 eViueiStaaTjs" -J 1 . 

8 /cat -X, a, € ; omitted by all other mss. 

7 dvdyKTjv -J 1 , g. 8 cxetv -J« 

9 e/cardacts -J 1 * g. 

10 /ca0' aura (eaurd -X) rd -X, a, A, y, E, B, e< 

11 avfi^ep^KOTojs -J« l2 Sia<j)9opas -J *♦ g. 

13 ttoAAoI -g. 14 /cat -omitted by g. 

a Sophist 262 a 3-7, b 6, and b 10-c 1 ; but Plato here 
speaks only of Trpdfets and TrparrovTzs as signified by verbs 
and nouns. For Plutarch's substitution of vpayfiara for 
npaids cf. Scholia in Dionysii Thracis Artem Grammaticanu 
p. 215, 28-30 (Hilgard) ; Apollonius Dyscolus, Be Con- 
struction* i, 130 and iii, 58 (p. 108, 11-14 and pp. 323, 9-324, 
9 [IThlig]). 


acts and what is undergone and with the noun the 
agents and patients, as Plato has said himself/ it 
seemed that these signify, whereas one might say 
that the rest like the groans and shouts of actors do 
not signify ; and, by heaven, suddenly falling silent 
with a smile often makes speech more expressive 
and yet has not the force requisite for signifying as 
do the verb and the noun but a certain supplementary 
force embellishing speech in the way that the letters 
are embellished by those who make independent 
ones of their breathings and aspirates and in some 
cases of their long and short quantities, b although 
these are rather modifications and incidental char- 
acteristics and variations of letters/ as the ancients 
showed by adequately expressing themselves in 
actually writing with sixteen letters. d 

2. In the second place, take care lest we fail to 
heed what Plato has said, that speech is a blend of 

b to. 7Tv€vfjLara are the two " breathings," Saav koI </aAoV 
(cf. Dionysius Thrax, Ars Grammatica, Suppl. i, p. 107, 4 
[Chlig] and for the argument that such marks are letters cf. 
Scholia in Dionysii Thracis Art em Grammatically pp. 187, 
26-188, 21 and p. 496, 11-13 [Hilgard]) ; but T a S SaavTrjras 
refers to the aspirates 0, <£, x ( c /- Dionysius Thrax, Ars 
Grammatica § 6, p. 12, 5 [Uhlig] ; Sextus, Adv. Math, i, 
103; Priscian, Inst. Grammatica i, 24-25 =i, p. 19, 3-8 
[Hertz]) and iKraoeis re koll owroAas iviwv to the distinction 
of t/ from c and of o> from o (cf. Sextus, Adv. Math, i, 1 15). 

c Cf. Scholia in Dionysii Thracis Art em Gram mat team, 
p. 496, 19-24 (Hilgard). 

d Cf. Plutarch, Quaest. Conviv. 738 p ; Demetrius of 
Phaleron, frag. 196 (Wehrli) ; Varro, De Antiquitate Lit- 
terarum, frag. 2 (Funaioli, Grammatical Romanae Frag- 
ment a i, p. 184 ; cf. pp. 2 and 120 for L. Cincius, frag. 1 and 
Cn. Oellius, frag. 1); Pliny, N.H. vii, 192; Tacitus, Ann. 
xi, 11; Scholia in Dionysii Thracis Art em Grammaticam, 
pp. 34, 27-35, 13 and pp. 184, 7-12 and 185, 3-7 (Hilgard). 



(1009) tovtojv elprjKOTos, dd* aWep 6 X tov Xeyovra 2 to 

<f>dpilOLKOV €K KTjpOV fl€[lix6<U Kal Xa\f$dvr]S OVKO- 

(fxivTcov, irrel to rrvp TrapeXnre Kal to ayyetov &v 
X^pls ovk ivrjv /x£/zix#cu, /cat oj/zet? ofioiojg ey/ca- 
Aa»/x€v 3 6Vt crvvbeajjLovs /cat irpodiotis /cat ra 
roiavra rraprJKev* ov yap e/c tovtojv 6 Aoyos* aAA', 
€L7T€p apa, Sia tovtojv Kal ovk dvev tovtojv Ktpdv- 
1010 wodai ne<j)VK€v. ov yap, tooirep 6 to " tv7tt€l ,m 

<f>6ey£dfJL€VOS Tj TO TV7TT€Tai " 5 /Cat 77aAtV TO 

" HojKpaT-qs " 77 to " Ylvdayopas " apLOJoytTTOJS 
vorjaac tl Kal Stavorjdfjvai 7rap€ox r l K€V >* outoj 
tov pL€v i] yap rj rrepi /cat/ avTO 
€K<f>ojvr)64vTos % ecrnv k'vvoidv Tiva AajSetv 9 fj Trpdy- 
/LcaTO? rj oojfiaTos' aAA* idv firj irepl c/ceiVa /cat 

fl€T* €K€iVO)V €K(f)€pr)Tai, xf)6(f>OlS K€VOLS Kal T^OtS 
€OLK€V OTt TaUTa /X€V Ot>T€ /Ca0' aUTCL 07]jJLaiV€lV 

out€ fX€T aAArjAoJv ovotv Tr€<f>vK€v, aAA ottcos av 
ovfJLTrAzKOjpLev f) fjuyvvu>p,€v els TavTO ovvSeojiovs 
Kal dpdpa Kal TrpoOeoets, k'v Tt 10 7ret/)di/X€vot kolvov 
i£ avTibv TroieZv, 11 TepeTil^iv fiaXXov rj StaAcyc- 

1 o -omitted by J 1 , g. 

2 Xeyov (tov and T a omitted) -a 1 . 

3 iyKaXovficv -J 1 , g. 

4 TU7TT€t -MSB,, ; tvtttsiv -Basiliensis. 

5 TvnT€a0ai -Aldine, Basiliensis. 

6 7ra/)€(j^€v ~J» g. 

7 *a0' auro -omitted by E, B. 

8 (fxovrjevros - J» g« 

* Xafitlv riva -X, e. 

xo €v nvi -n. 

11 KOLVOV 7TOl€lV fi{ aUT<£y "X. 

a The phrase, crcujua 77 irpayixa cnj/^aivov, occurs in the 
definition of ovofia given by Dionysius Thrax, Ars Gram- 



these, not that it is blended by means of them, and 
lest then like one who, when the medicine is said 
to be a mixture of wax and galbanum, carps at the 
omission of the fire and the receptacle, without 
which it could not have been mixed, we too similarly 
object that Plato disregarded conjunctions and pre- 
positions and the like, for it is not of these that 
speech is naturally blended but, if at all, by means 
of them and not without them. For it is not the case 
that as one by uttering " strikes " or " is struck " 
and again " Socrates " or " Pythagoras " has pro- 
vided something to conceive and have in mind some- 
how so, when " indeed " or " for " or " about " has 
been pronounced by itself, it is possible to get some 
conception of an act or an object a ; but, unless 
these are expressions about those other words and 
in association with them, they resemble senseless 
sounds and noises. The reason is that they naturally 
signify nothing either by themselves or in association 
with one another ; but, however we may combine 
or mix together conjunctions and articles and pre- 
positions in trying to make of them a single thing 
in common, it will seem that we are babbling gib- 

matica § \2 (p. 24, 3-4 [Uhlig]). Since Plutarch has just 
given both verbs and nouns as counter-examples, however, 
TTpaynaros here is probably meant in the sense of to. npayfiaTa 
in 1009 d supra (page 108, note a) ; cf. also Dionysius Hal., 
Be Comp. Verb, xii, 69-70 (p. 46, 2\ f. [Usener-Rader- 
macher]), <£ tn^cuvci n atopa rj npdyfxa, where the preceding 
ovt* ovo/xa ovtc p^fia. (ibid., p. 46, 18) indicates that irpay^a 
means act M and not " thing." The use of acofia for " ob- 
ject M generally reflects the Stoic doctrine that all agents and 
patients — and so all entities — are ou>fiara (see notes / and g 
on Be Comm. Not. 1073 e infra and cf. Apollonius Dyscolus, 
De Constructione i, 16 =p. 18, 5-8 [Uhlig]). 



(J.UJ.U) /) 1 & '£ < / £>>>/ 2 \ / 

-^ oven, oogofiev* prjiAaros o ovofxari avjLi77A€/co/xe- 
vov, to y€voyL€vov evdvs 8lol\€kt6s* €gtc koL Xoyos. 
odev cIkotcos tvioi /xoVa ravra p,€pr) rod Xoyov rL- 
devrac Kal "Qiirjpos locos tovto fiovXerou orjXovv 
€K<xgtot€ Xeytov 

€770? T €tf>OLT €K T OVOfXa^eV 

€770? yap to pfjfjia KaXetv eltodev, tooirzp iv tovtols 
to yvvai, fj pcdXa tovto cttos 6vjJLaXyes 4 eenres 


X°fip€> TTO>T€p CO ^€LV€, €770? 8' €lTT€p Tt & XeXehC- 


0€lv6v, dtfcap to tfrepoiev dvapnd£aoai deXXai. 

ovt€ yap ovvoeorfiov ovt dpdpov 7 out€ 7Tpodeoiv % 
oeivov ioTi Kal 6vp,aXyes eiTretv dXXd prjfxa <J 
C Trpd£etos epLtfravTiKov 10 aloxpag fj 11 TrdOovs tivos 
dv€TnT7}0€iov. Sto /cat 7Toi7]Tas Kal ovyy panels 
€Lco6aix€v €7Taiveiv fj ifjeyew ovt to rrtos XeyovTts 

1 8iaAoyi£ea0cu -J, g« 2 ovofxaros -J 1 . 

3 StdAoyos -fi\ n, Voss. 16, Escorial T-ll-5, Bonon. 

4 0uyaAye? -J 1 . 

5 e^o? t' e47r€/o re-j8» n, Voss. 16, Escorial T-H-5, Bonoft. 

6 pipaicrai -Homer. 

7 ddepov -J 1 . 

8 7TpOT€pOV -J 1 , g. 

10 ipufxiTiKov -€. 
11 7} -Meziriac ; eV -mss. 

a Plato, Sophist 262 c 4-7 and n 2-6. 

* C/. [Apuleius], Ilfpt epfirfvelas iv (p. 178, 4-7 [Thomas]) ; 
Apollonius Dyscolus, De Constructione i, 30 (p. 28, 6-9 
f Uhlig] with Priscian, Inst. Grammatlca xvii, 22 = ii, pp. 121, 
21-122, 1 [Hertz]) ; and Scholia in Di&nysii Thraris Artem 
Grammaticam, pp. 515, 19-517, 32 (Hilgard), where the 



berish rather than speaking a language. When a 
verb is combined with a noun, however, the result 
is straightway language and speech. Wherefore it 
is reasonable that some people consider these alone 
to be parts of speech b ; and this perhaps is what 
Homer wants to make clear each time he says 
gave word to the thought and announced it, c 
for it was his custom to call the verb " word," as in 
these lines : 

Verily, woman, a heart-breaking word is this thou hast 
spoken d 


Joy to thee, reverend guest ; if offensive words have been 

May they be gone forthwith swept up and away by a 


For what is offensive and heart-breaking to speak is 
not a conjunction or an article or a preposition but a 
verb expressive of a shameful action or of some im- 
proper experience. This is also why we customarily 
praise or censure writers of poetry and prose in 

doctrine is ascribed to the Peripatetics and some of the 
supporting arguments are answered (cf. Priscian, op. cit.^ 
ii, 15 and xi, 6-7 =i, p. 54, 5-7 and pp. 551, 17-552, 14 
[Hertz]). An elaborate defence of the doctrine, in many 
particulars like Plutarch's, is given by Ammonius (l)e 
Interpretatiane, pp. 11, 1-15, 13), who with explicit reference 
to the Cratylus and the Sophist asserts that Plato anticipated 
Aristotle in holding it (Be Interpreted tone > p. 40, 26-30 ; 
p. 48, 30-32; p. 60, 1-3 and 17-23). Cf. Aristotle, Rhetoric 
1404 b 26-27 ; Theophrastus and Boethus of Sidon in 
Simplicius, Categ., p. 10, 24-27 and p. 11, 23-25; and 
Adrastus in Theon Smyrnaeus, p. 49, 7-9 (Hiller). 

c Iliad vi, 253 and 406 ; vii, 108 ; and passim. 

d Odyssey xxiii, 183. 

<• Odyssey viii, 408-409. 



(1010) " 'Attikols ovofiaaiv 6 Seiva KdxPV Tai Ka ' 1 KaXoi? 
prj/jLdaiv rj rraMv rre^ois to oe ye tt€L,ols 
r) " KaXols " rrdXiv " /ecu 'Arrt/cots* dpQpois " 

OVK CU> €17701 Tfc£ Eu/Hm'S^V ^ ©OU/CvStS^V $L€L- 


3. " Tt ovv ; " — (frfoai ris dv — " ovSev raura 
ovfifidXXeTCu 7rpds Xoyov ; ' ' eytoye cf>r]oaipi av 
tuorrep dXas z ovfxfidXAeoOai rrpos oi/jov vScop Se 
TTpos fxdl^av. Etfyvos* Se /cat to rrvp ecpaoKev 
r)8vafxdrcov elvai Kpdnurov. dXX* owB* tJScop fid^rjg 
r) dprov jiepos elvat Ae'yo/zei> 5 ovre rrvp ovd' aAa? 
eifj-qpLaros rj fipwfJLaros* cov del rvyxdvofiev Sed/xe- 
voiy ovx coorrep 6 Aoyos* 7roAAa/as £k€lvojv drrpoa- 
D Se^s" iariv, cog SoKei p,oi [rrepl c Paj/xaia>v] e^etv o 
e Pa)/x,Gu'a>i>, (<5) ? *^ ojLtou Tt rrdvres avOptoiroi 
Xptovrar irpoQeoets re yap dcfyfjprjKe 7r\r)v oXlycov* 

1 <cat -J 1 , g ; omitted by all other mss. 

2 Dubner (to Se Treats' -Wyttenbach) ; 6 be ye Trefoi? -J 1 , 
g; 7Te?ots Se -Escorial T-ll-5 ; oSe Se 7re£ots -all other mss. 

3 aAAar-J 1 , g. 

4 etWos -n, Voss. 16, c 1 (?). 

5 KparidTov . . . /xepo? clvcu -omitted by J, g, a, A, y, E, 
B ; Kpa.Ti.orov . . . dvox Ae'yo/xev -omitted by 1 (added in 
margin by f} 2 ). 

6 apatfiGLTOs "X, e. 

7 Dubner (/xot o 'Pojjuch'gjv exeiv, a> -Wyttenbach) ; jxot 
7repl pajfialcov Xcyeiv opw fxeXXoj (fxeXXajv -/?♦ n, Voss. 16, Bo- 
non.) vvv -all mss. except Escorial T-ll-5 (jzoi -nepi pco- 
fiaia>v Aeyeiv 6pa> . . . vac. 30 . . . oAA* a>an€p o/xou 7tolvt€s)' 

8 oAtyov -J. 

a In such expressions 6vop,a (and the same could be said 
of pfjfia) is used in a different sense, i.e. to kolvcos eVi wav fiepog 
Xoyov hiaTttvov {rf. Simplicius, Categ., p. 25,' 14-17 ; Scholia 
in Dionysii Thraeis Artem Gramniaticam, p. 522, 21-28 

b Evenus, frag. 10 (Bergk, Poetae Lyr. Graec. ii 4 , p. 271 ; 



terms like these, " the nouns employed by so-and-so 
are ' Attic ' and the verbs are ' elegant ' " or again 
" pedestrian/ 7 a whereas it would not be said by 
anyone that in the language of Euripides or Thucy- 
dides " pedestrian M or again " elegant and Attic 
articles " are used. 

3. " What then ? " — one might say — " Do these 
words contribute nothing to speech ? " I should say 
that they do make a contribution to it just as salt 
does to a dish of food and water to a barley-cake. 
Evenus even said that fire is the best of sauces. 6 
Nevertheless, we do not say either that water is a 
part of barley-cake or wheat-bread or that fire or 
salt is a part of greens or victuals, although we do 
always require fire and salt, whereas speech unlike 
this often has no need of those additional words. 
So it is, it seems to me, with the speech of the 
Romans, which now is used by nearly all men, for it 
has eliminated all prepositions except for a few c 

Edmonds, Elegy and Iambus i, p. 476). The remark is 
ascribed to Evenus in Quomodo Adulator ab Amico Inter- 
noscatur 50 a and in Quaest. Conviv. 697 c-d but to Prodicus 
in De Tuenda Sanitate 126 d. 

c According to Hartman (De Plutarcho, p. 583) this is an 
erroneous generalization from those Latin expressions of 
relations of place in which no preposition is used ; according 
to H. J. Rose (The Roman Questions of Plutarch [Oxford, 
1924], p. 198 ad lxvii [208 a]) it is rather an exaggeration 
suggested by the contemporary fondness for archaic and 
poetical constructions which omitted the prepositions of 
Ciceronian grammar ; and both these observations may be 
partial explanations of Plutarch's " odd statement," but it 
should be remembered also that many Latin " prepositions M 
were regarded by the Greeks as not being prepositions at all 
(Priscian, Inst. Grammatica xiv, 9-10 and 23=ii, pp. 28, 
19-29, 11 and pp. 36, 20-37, 6 [Hertz]). From a different 
point of view Plutarch's statement without being noticed is 



(1010) airaoaSy twv re KaXovptevajv dpdpajv ovSev TTpoa- 
Sexerai to TrapaTrav, dAAa tooirep aKpaairebocs 1 
Xprjrai tols ovoftaoi. /cat ov davfxaoTov ianv, 

07TOV Kal V OpHf]pos €7T€OJV KOOjjLO) 7T€piy€v6pL€VOS 

oXiyois Ttov ovopbdrajv dpdpa tboirep AajSas" iKTrto- 
jiaai jjltj 2 Seofievois rj X6<f>ovs 3 Kpdveoiv IttitLQ^oi' 
8to Kal* 7rapaoT)na rcov eircov ev ols tclvtcl 7roteZ 5 
yeyovev, <bs to 

AiavTL 8e pbaXcara 8at(f)povi dvfiov opive 
to) TeXapLCDVidSfi 

Kal TO 

TToUeV,* 6<f)pa TO K7JTOS V7T€K7TpO<f)Vyd)V 7 dAe'curo 8 

Kal fipaxtCL rrpos tovtols erepa. tois S' dAAois' 
E jivpLoLS ovaiv dpdpov jirf irpooovTos ovSev els 
oa(f>rjveiav ovSe /cdAAo? rj (jypdois fiXdrrreTaL . 

1 Meziriac; KpaaneSoLS -mss. 

2 firj -j8 2 , n, Voss. 16, Escorial T-ll-5, Bonon. ; omitted 
by all other mss. 

3 \6<I>ols "J 1 > g- 4 Kal -omitted by g. 

5 TToiclv -€ ; 7r/oo (i.e. irpoyeyovev) -Escorial T-l 1-5. 

6 TToulv n ; ttoUov -Homer. 7 vncpTrpo^vycbv -n. 

8 dAAcotro -Escorial T-l 1-5 ; aAeWo -Homer. 

9 apdpou 8e pi-q -J, g. 

supported by R. Poncelet (Ciceron Traducteur de Platan 
[Paris, 1957]), who characterizes the Latin penury of analy- 
tical instruments as " pas d'articles, peu de prepositions, peu 
de participes " (p. 18) and considers the rudimentary prepo- 
sitional system of Latin along with its lack of an article to be 
one of the principal reasons for Cicero's difficulties in trans- 
lating the philosophical Greek of Plato (pp. .59-61, pp. 105- 
129, p. 139). 

a Qf» Quintilian, Inst it. Oral, i, 4, 19 ; Priscian, Inst. 
Grammatica ii, 16 and xvii, 21 (i, p. 54, 13-16 and ii, p. P24, 
16-18 [Hertz]). 

b Cf. Democritus, frag. B 21 (I).-K.) and Pausanias, ix, 30, 



and of the words called articles admits none at all a 
but employs nouns without tassels, as it were. This 
is not surprising either, since Homer too, who ex- 
celled in marshalling words,** attaches articles to 
few of his nouns, as it were crests to helmets or 
handles to goblets that do not require them c ; and 
that is the very reason why critical marks (/ have 
been put at the verses in which he does so, for 
example : 

Wrathful fury he chiefly excited in fiery Ajax, 
The Telamonian one,* 


Built it to let him elude and evade the notorious monster / 
and a few r others besides. In the rest, however, 
countless as they are, though an article is not 
present, the expression suffers nothing in clarity or 

4 and 12. The phrase Koofiov enctw occurs in a line of 
Solon's quoted by Plutarch himself (Solo?i viii, 2 [82 c]) ; cf. 
also Parmenides, frag. B 8, 52 (D.-K.) and Philetas of Cos, 
frag. 8 (Diehl, Anth. Ijyr. Graec. ii, p. 211) = 10 (Powell, 
Collectanea Alexandrine p. 92). 

6 There were iKirw^ara of countless kinds (Clement of 
A lexandria, Paedagogus n, iii, 35, 2), many without handles 
(Athenaeus, xi, 783 a, 478 b, and 481 d). 

d Cf. Aristotle, Soph. Elench. 177 b 6 (koikci . . . napdarj^a 

< Iliad xiv, 459-460. Leaf (The Iliad ii 2 , p. 97 ad 458-459) 
calls the use of tw in 460 " hardly Homeric." Cf. in general 
Scholia Graeca in Homeri Iliadem ed. Dindorf i, p. 70, 10-11 
ad B 1 and p. 339, 14-15 ad K 1 (ccm yap 6 7Toir)rr)s napa- 
XetTTTLKOs To>v apBpojv)' 

* Iliad xx, 147. For the use of the article here cf. Scholia 
Graeca in Homeri Iliadem ed. Dindorf ii, p. 199, 19-20 ; 
Leaf (The Iliad ii 2 , p. 359) calls it very rare in Homer and 
says that " instances such as this are confined to late passages 
in the Iliad." 



(1010) 4. Kat fjbrjv ovre t,CQOV ovr opyavov ovd* orrXov 
ovr dXXo rd>v ovru>v ovSev oIkzlov fiepovs d<f>ai- 
peoei /cat oreprjaei ir€(f)VK€ ytyveadat /caAAtov 1 ov8* 
€V€pyear€pov ov8e yjSiov \6yos 8e, awSecr/xcov c£- 


repav e\€t Svvafiw <hs 6 tolovtos 

a'AAov £a>ov e^ovaa 2 veovrarov, aAAov dovrov, 
dXXov reOvecwra 3 Kara jjloOov e'A/c£ itoSouv 

/cat rd rov Arjpiooddvovs ravrl " 7roAAa yap av 
TToirjcreiev 6 rvirrajv, Sv* 6 Tradtbv evi ov& dv 
F a7rayy€tAat SiWt#' ire pep, rep oyr)piari rat fiXefi- 
/xaTt rfj (f>a>vfj, orav vfipi^ajv, drav exOpos 5 vtt- 
dpxwv, orav kov&vXols* orav em Kopprjs 7, ravra 
klv€l* ravr i^Lorrjotv avrcov dv8p<x)7TOV$ 9 drjdeis 
rov 10 TTpoTTTjXaKl^eodai." /cat 77aAtv " dXX ov 11 
MetSias" aAA' drro ravrrfs rrjs rjfiepas 12 Ae'yet, Aot- 
oopelrat, j8oa. x €L P OTOV€ ^ Ta ^ Tfc? > 13 MetSta? 'Ava- 
1011 yvpdoios 1 * TTpoftefiXrjrai. TLXovrdpxov 15 rrpo^evel, 

1 kolXAiotov -J, g. 2 exovaa -omitted by J 1 , g. 

3 T€^n/a>Ta -Homer (c/. Scholia Graeca in Humeri Iliad em 
ed. Dindorf ii, p. 176 ad 587). 

4 tvtttwv, w dvSpes *Adr]v(iloL, <Lv -Demosthenes. 

5 orav (hs vflpL^ajv, orav ojs e'x^pos -Demosthenes. 

6 orav KovhvXois -omitted by J l , g. 

7 Koprjs -Ji g '-> Kopt]s tvtttt) -Escorial T-ll-5. 

8 Ktvfj -J, g, Escorial T-ll-5. 

9 avra>v i^iarrjaiv dvdpaiTTovs ~J ? avrov i^tarrjaiv dvdpa>7rovs 
-g ; i^larrjatv avroits dvQpamovs -Escorial T-ll-5; i£lcrrr)oiv 
avdpcorrovs avrayv -Demosthenes. 

10 dyOovs rov -e ; arjdeis ovras rov -Demosthenes. 

11 ouSc-g. 

12 rrjs rjpdpas ravrrjs -Demosthenes S and Y (but A and 
F agree with Plutarch). 13 Demosthenes ; T t -mss. 

14 Escorial T-ll-5 and Demosthenes; dvayvppdoios -all 
other mss. 15 Demosthenes ; rrXovrdpxtp -mss. 



4. Moreover, it is not natural for any living being 
or instrument or weapon or any other existing thing 
to become more beautiful or more effective or more 
pleasant by the removal or loss of a part that belongs 
to it a ; but frequently when conjunctions have 
been eliminated speech has a force more emotional 
and more stirring, 5 as in a case like this : 

One just wounded alive in her clutches, another un- 

Dead already another she dragged by the feet through the 

turmoil c 

and this by Demosthenes : " He who strikes one 
might do many things, some of which his victim 
could not even report to another, by his posture, by 
his look, by his tone of voice, when insultingly, when 
in hostility, when with the fist, when with a slap in 
the face ; these are the things that stir up, that 
drive to distraction men unused to contemptuous 
treatment." d And again : " Not Meidias, how- 
ever ; but from this day forth he talks, reviles, 
shouts. Is someone to be elected ? Meidias of 
Anagyrus is a candidate. He represents the interests 

° Cf. Scholia in Dionysii Thracis Artem Grammaticam, 
pp. 516, 37-517, 4 (Hilgard). 

b Cf. [Plutarch], De Vita Homeri 40 (vii, pp. 355, 20-356, 
5 [Bernardakis]) ; for Plutarch, Caesar 1, 3-4 (731 f) cf. R, 
Jeuckens, Plutarch von Chaeronea und die Rhetorik (Strass- 
burg, 1908), pp. 162-163. 

c Iliad xviii, 536-537 =[Hesiod], Scutum 157-158 (cf. F. 
Solmsen, Hermes, xciii [1965], pp. 1-6). 

d Demosthenes, Oratio xxi, 72. The passage is quoted and 
analysed by " Longinus " (De Sublimitate xx-xxi) for the 
combination of several figures, asyndeton included ; cf. also 
Tiberius Rhetor, TLepl Gxr}fidrojv 40 (Rhetor es Graeci iii, 
p. 78, 1-4 [Spengel]). 



(1011) raTropprjT olftev, rj ttoAis avrov ov ^cDpei." 816 /cat 
a<f>68pa to aavvherov vx^a napd rois 1 ras 2 
rtyyas ypdifiovoiv €v8oKip,€i- tovs 3 8' dyav vofil- 
liovs eKtlvovs /cat pqhiva awSea/xov ck ttjs 

crvvrjOeias d(f)Levras d)S dpyrjv /cat aTradrj /cat 
KOTT<A)Sr] rep ajLterajSA^ra) ttjv cfipdotv ttoiovvtcls 
aiTi&vrai. to 8c tovs SiaAe ktlkovs /xaAtara ovv- 
8cop,tov Seiodai irpos tcls tlov d^ccopLaTcov awards 
/cat ovpirrXoKas /cat Sta£eu£ets tooTrcp rjvcoxovs 
c^vycov /cat tov (ev) 4 KvkAojttos 'OSuacrea Xvycov 

77/069 TTjV TCOV TTpofiaTLOV OVv(8cOW . . .) OV* pLCpOS 

Xoyov tov 6 ovv&eopiov dAA' opyavov ti ovv8ctikov* 
B drrocpaLvet, Kaddircp aW/xaorat, /cat ovv€ktlkov ov 

1 nap* oh -n, Voss. 16. 

2 rdy -omitted by a, A, y, E, B, € . 

3 tiJj -J 1 ; tovs -all other mss. 

4 <eV> -added by Emperius (Op. PhiloL, p. 340). 

5 Hubert after Bernardakis (Xvytuv npos rdv irpopdrmv rrjv 
avvoeoiv <Odyssey ix, 425 and 427> ov) ; Xvywv -rrpos ri)v 
tcov TTpofiaTCDV ov -J t g ; Atiytuvra 7rpo? ry\v twv npo^drcov aw 
. . . vac. 83 (first 5 erased) . . . ov -p (oi)v . . . vac. 57 . . . i) 
-Bonon.) ; Xvytovra irpos ttjv rdv TTpoflaTayv . . . vac. 58 . . . 
ov -n, Voss. 16; Aeyovra 77-009 tt)v tgjv 7rpopdrcov . . . vac. 
64 . . . ov -Escorial T-l 1-5 ; 'OSiWa . . . vac. 30 -X ; 62 - a ; 
100 -A ; 84 - y ; 87 -E ; 88 -B ; 69 - € . . . ov. 

6 , T 6v -omitted by J, g ; tov -a. 

7 tl -J, g ; omitted by all other mss. 

8 aWO€KTLKOV "J» g. 

a Plutarch, the tyrant of Eretria (cf. Plutarch, Phocion 
xii-xiii [747 a-e] ; Demosthenes, Oratio v, 5 [with scholion 
ad loc] and xxi, 1 10). 

b Demosthenes, Oratio xxi, 200. Part of this passage is 
quoted for asyndeton by [Aristides], Libri Rhetorici i, 28 
(pp. 13, 23-14, 1 [W. Schmid]). 

c Cf. Demetrius, Be Elocutione 193-194 and 268-269 ; 
" Longinus," De Sublimitate xxi; Tiberius Hhetor, Hepl 


of Plutarch , a knows the secrets of state, is too big 
for the city." 6 This is just the reason why the 
figure of asyndeton is very highly esteemed by the 
writers of the rhetorical manuals, and those who 
abide too strictly by the rules and leave out no con- 
junction of the ordinary language they censure for 
making their style dull and unemotional and weari- 
some from lack of variety. 6 That the dialecticians 
have special need of conjunctions for the connexions 
and combinations and disjunctions of propositions, d 
as charioteers have of yokes and as Odysseus <in the 
cave) of Cyclops had of withes for binding the sheep 
together e <(. . .), this shows not that the conjunction 
is a part of speech / but that it is a kind of instru- 
ment for conjoining, just as its name indicates, that 

GXVf l< ^ Ta)V 4>® (Rhetores Oraeci iii, p. 78, 11-15 [Spengel]) ; 
[Cicero], Ad Herennium iv, 41. For at t£xv<u — " rhetorical 
manuals " cf. Isocrates, Adv. Sophistas 19 (ras KaXovfievas 
rexvas) with the scholion ad loc. 

d The dialecticians are the Stoics (see note d on page 107 
supra). The propositions in question are the conditional 
(awr]fjLfjL€vov) 9 the conjunctive (ovfiireTrAcyiievov), and the dis- 
junctive (Sicfeuy/xeW) ; and the avvhcafioL required for these 
are respectively 6 owoltttikos (ci), 6 ovfnrXcKTiKos (kou')» and o 
hia&vKTiKos (tJtol or rj) : cf. Diogenes Laertius, vii, 71-72 
(S. V.F. ii, frag. 207) ; Galen, Institutio Logica iii, 3-4 and 
iv, 4-6 (pp. 8, 13-9, 8 and pp. 10, 13-11, 12 [Kalbfleisch] = 
S. V.F. ii, frags. 208 and 217) ; and Plutarch, De E 386 f— 
387 a, De Sollertia Animalium 969 a-b, and De An. Proc. 
in Timaeo 1026 b-c. 

e Cf Odyssey ix, 427 and Euripides, Cyclops 225. 

f As the Stoics held it to be : cf. Diogenes Laertius, vii, 
57-58 (S.V.F. ii, frag. 147 and iii, p. 214, 1-2) ; S. V.F. ii, 
frag. 148 ; Scholia in Dionysii Thracis Artem Grammaticam, 
p. 356, 13-15 and p. 517, 33-34 with p. 519, 26-32 (Hilgard). 
Posidonius wrote against those who said that conjunctions 
ov &r]\ovai [iiv rt avTO Se fiovov rrjv tfrpdaw ovvhtovai ( Apollonius 
Dyscolus, Be Conjunct ionibus, p. 214, 4-8 [Schneider]). 



(1011) ttolvtcdv dXXd rtov ovx a7rXa>s Xeyofievcov, el /xt) 
/cat rov </>oprlov rov ifidvra /cat rov jStjSAiov rrjv 
koXXolv atjiovot, [xepos elvai /cat vtj Ata 1 rds 8ta- 
vo/xds rod TroXirevfiaros, cos k'Xeye A^/idS^c, /coA- 
Aav ovojxd^ijjv rd detopiKa 2 rrjs 8r)fxoKparlas. 
iTolos he ovvSeajjios ovrais ev €/c ttoXXqjv d^t'ayxa 
iroiel ovp/nXeKOiv /cat ovvdrrroyv <hs rj fidpfxapos 3 
rov cruXXi7Taiv6fi€vov A Std rov nrvpos al&r)pov ; dAA' 
ovk ear tv ov8e Xeyerai rod otSrjpov fiepos* Kairoi 
(rd) roiavrd b ye rols Kepavwiievois ev8vopieva 
/cat ovvrrjKofjieva iroiel ri [/cat 7rda^€t] 6 kowov €K 
C TrXetovcov. 7 rovs Se ovvSeofiovs elalv oi jjlt) vo- 

1 vr\ Ata -X, £ 2 , n, Voss. 16, Bonon., Escorial T-l 1-5 ; 
etvai vrj Ata *at -€ ; vrj Ata -omitted by all other mss. 

2 decop-qriKa -J, g, Voss. 16, Escorial T-l 1-5. 

3 fxapficpos -J, Escorial T-ll-5 1 ; fjidficp -g. 

4 avXavXirraivofievov -J. 

5 H. C. ; feat rotavra -J, g ; Katrot raura -all other mss. 

6 [/cat 7rdox€i] -deleted by Hartman (De Plutarcho, p. 588). 

7 7rXoi6vOJV -J. 

a That is even for the Stoics the conjunction holds together 
only a molecular proposition, this consisting of two or more 
atomic (simple) propositions, each of which itself consists of 
a subject and predicate not connected by any conjunction : 
c/. Sextus, Adv. Math, viii, 93-95 and 108-109 (S.V.F. ii, 
p. 66, 28-37 and pp. 70, 36-71, 2) with Mates, Stoic Logic, 
pp. 95-96 ; and Diogenes Laertius, vii, 68-69 and 71-72 
(S. V.F. ii, frags. 203 and 207). 

b Cf. [Apuleius], Ilcpt ippLTjveias iv (p. 178, 7-11 [Thomas]) ; 
Ammonius, De Interpretation, pp. 12, 25-13, 6 and p. 67, 
15-19 and p. 73, 19-22 ; Simplicius, Categ., p. 64, 23-25 ; 
Scholia in Dionysii Thracis Art em Grammaticam, p. 515, 
19-29 (Hilgard). 

c Demades, frag. 13 (Baiter-Sauppe, Oratores Attici ii, 
p. 315 b 38-42) =xxxvi (De Falco, Demade Oratore 2 , p. 31). 

d See note d on 1011 a supra. 



is for holding together not all statements but those 
that are non-simple, a — unless one also maintains 
that the strap is part of the load and the glue part 
of the book b and the dole, by heaven, part of the 
government, as Demades said when he called the 
festival-grants the glue of the democracy. What 
kind of conjunction, moreover, by combining and con- 
necting d makes of many a proposition so thoroughly 
one as the marble makes the iron that is smelted with 
it in the fire ? The marble, however, is not and is 
not said to be a part of the iron ; and yet things of 
this kind make something common out of a multi- 
plicity e by permeating the objects that are being 
blended and by being fused with them/ As to con- 
junctions, however, there are people who believe 

e Cf. 1010 A supra : Zvrt, 7T€ipu)(j,cvoi kolvov ef avrtov notetv. 

1 The marble is not fused with the iron, as Plutarch 
apparently believed it is, but supplies the limestone which 
unites with the non-ferrous minerals of the ore (the " gan- 
gue ") and with the ash of the fuel to form the M cinder " or 
11 slag." It may be such a flux to which reference is made by 
[Aristotle], De Mirabilibus Auscultationibus 833 b 24-28 and 
by Theophrastus, De Lapidibus 9 (cf. H. Bliimner, Techno- 
logie und Terminologie der Oewerbe und Kiinste bet Griechen 
und Rbmern iv [Leipzig, 1887], pp. 219-220 ; A. W. Persson, 
Eisen und Eisenbereltung in altester Zeit [Lund, 1934], pp. 
15-17 ; E. R. Caley and J. F. C. Richards, Theophrastus on 
Stones [Columbus, 1956], p. 77) ; but in no ancient text, so 
far as I know, is an explanation of the process offered, 
although the purpose of the flux used in refining gold is 
mentioned (cf. Agatharchides in Photius, Bibliotheca, cod. 
250, p. 448, 19-30 [Bekker] ; Pliny, N.H. xxxiii, 60 ; H. 
Bliimner, op. cit., pp. 131-135). It is to a different stage in 
the working of the iron that Plutarch refers in Quaest. 
Conviv. 660 c and De Primo Frigido 954 a-b; cf. also 
H. D. P. Lee on Aristotle, Meteorologica 383 a 32 ~b 7 (L.C.L., 
pp. 324-329). 



(1011) fiL^ovres €V re iroitlv dXX i^apidpLrjatv efvat rrjv 

StdAeKTOV, 0JO7T€p dp\OVT(JdV €(f)€^7JS (jj} 1 Tj/JLtptJoV 


5. Kat firjv tcl)v ye Xolttcov rj puev avrcovvfAia 
irepufxivtos yevos 2 ovoparos eorw, ov)( fj 7rrcoaea>v 
p,ereyei> fxovov dXXd /cat rep Kvpiojrdrrjv d'/xa rfj 

(f)do€L* 7TOL€LV 8el£lV iviCLS €771 TCOV (I)piGfJL€VCOV €K~ 

<f>epop,€vas' koll ovk otSa ore fidXXov 6 " Sou/coa- 
rrjv n4 <f>dey£dpLevos rj 6 rovrov " elrrdtv oVo/zaari 5 
TrpoGOJiTov SeSrjXcoKev. 

6. f H Se KaXovfievrj pLeroxrj, /uy/xa pr)pLaros 
ovaa koll ovojjlcltos, 6 Kad' lav-rip? (xev ovk eariv, 
woirep ov8e ret kolvol drjXvKcov koll dppevcKtbv ovo- 

D /za,Ta, uvvrdrrerai S' eKeivois, icfxnTTopLtvrj rols pev 

Xpovois tcjv prfixdrcDV rats 8e TrrcoaeoL ra>v ovo- 

fidrcov. ol 8e 8iaXeKrtKol ra rocavra kclXovolv 

1 <r}> -added by Meziriac ; implied by Amyot's version. 
2 ydvo$ 7T€pt<j>avibs _ J> g- 
3 Wyttenbach ; cfrvoci -mss. 

TT] -X. 5 OVOfJLCLTL ~J» g- 

6 feat oVo'aaro? -omitted by J 1 , g. 

7 « « V 


a Cf. the sceptical argument that a statement or propo- 
sition cannot exist, because the expressions, which must be 
its constituent parts, do not coexist but are at most successive 
(Sextus, Adv. Math, i, 132-188 with Pyrrh. Hyp. ii, 109 and 
Adv. Math, viii, 81-84, 132, and 136).' 

b i.e. demonstratives {cf. Apollonius Dyscolus, De Prono- 
mine, pp. 9, 17-10, 7 and p. 10, 18-26 [Schneider] : Scholia 



that they do not make anything one but that 
language is an enumeration like that of annual 
magistrates (or) of days listed one after another.* 

5. Now, of the rest the pronoun is patently a 
kind of noun, not only as it shares the cases of the 
noun but also by reason of the fact that some pro- 
nouns, 6 being expressions of definite reference, make 
an indication fully decisive as soon as they are 
spoken ; and I do not know that a speaker uttering 
" Socrates " has by calling a name more clearly in- 
dicated a person than has one saying " this man." c 

6. And as for what is called the participle, since 
it is a mixture of verb and noun, d it does not exist 
of itself/ to be sure, as the nouns of common feminine 
and masculine gender do not either / ; but it is 
ranked with those parts of speech, since through its 
tenses it borders on the verbs and through its cases 
on the nouns. Terms of this kind, moreover, are 

in Dionysii Thracis Artem Grammaticam, pp. 77, 25-78, 6 
with p. 86, 7-13 and p. 260, 21-24 [Hilgard]). 

c Cf. Sextus, Adv. Math, viii, 96-97 (S. V.F. ii, frag. 205 
[pp. 66, 38-67, 9J) : according to the Stoics Sco/cpar^s KaB^rai 
is intermediate between the indefinite rls Kad-qrai and the 
definite ovtos Kad^rai. 

d Cf. Dionysius Thrax, Ars Grammatica § 15 (p. 60, 2-4 
[Uhlig]) ; Scholia in Dionysii Thracis Artem Grammaticam, 
pp. 255, 25-256, 7 (Hilgard) ; Ammonius, De Interpre- 
tation, p. 15, 2-4. 

* Cf. Priscian, Inst. Grammatica xi, 2 (i, p. 549, 3-6 

Hertz] : " ideo autem participium separatim non tradebant 

scil. Stoici] partem orationis . . .") and ii, 16 (i, p. 54, 9-10 

Hertz]) ; Scholia in Dionysii Thracis Artem Grammaticam, 

p. 518, 17-22 (Hilgard). 

f Cf. Scholia in Dionysii Thracis Artem Grammaticam, 
pp. 218, 18-219, 15 and especially pp. 525, 32-526, 11 (Hil- 
gard) ; 11. Schneider, Apollonii Dyscoli Quae Supersunt i, 2 
(Commentarium . . . in Apollonii Scripta Minora), pp. 24-25. 



(1011) avravaKXaarovs y l otov 6 (f>povcov dure 2 rod <f>po- 
vljxov /cat o aw(f)pov(jL)v s dvrl* rod oto(f)pov6s ioriv, 
d)S ovopidnDV /cat irpoar\yopicov hvvapav e^ovra. 

7. Tds ye [X7]v TTpodeaeis eanv tmKpdvois /cat 
jSacreat /cat vTrodepLaocv, cb$ ov Xoyovs aAAa nepl 
rovs Xoyovs fxaXXov ovoas, ofioiovv. opa Se 6 [xtj 
KOfifiaac /cat dpavapLaaiv 6vo[idrcov iotKaaiVy ooanep 
ypafJLfjLdrcov CT7raoay/xaat 6 koX /ceoatais* oV ott€v- 
8ovt€s ypd(f>ovac to yap " efjifirjvcu " /cat u e/c- 
fifjvai ' ' GvyKOTTTj Trpocfravrjs* cart rov ' l ivros 
E fifjvai " /cat rod " £ktos /^vat," /cat to " 7roo- 
yeveoOai n tov ll irpoT€pov yevecr&u," /cat to 
Kaut^eiv rou Kara) i^eiv oooTrep a/xcAct 
to " Xcdovs jSaAAetv " /cat " Tofyovs opvaaeiv " 

1 11. T. Schmidt (Stoicorum Grammatica [Halle, 1839], 
p. 46, n. 66) ; dvaKXaarovs -mss. 

2 dvrl -G. F. Shoemann (Die Lehre von den Redetheilen 
[Berlin, 1862], p. 39, n. 1) ; dno -mss. 

3 OU)<j>pU)V -J, g. 

4 dvrt -G. F. Shoemann (loc. cit.) ; d™ -mss. 

5 opa 817 - J 1 , g ; 6W 8e -€. 

6 oirapdyp.ara -J 1 . 7 otoy -J 1 * g» 

8 n€pi<l>ava>s "J 1 » g? 7Tpo<f>ava)S "j3 2 > n, Voss. 16, Bonon., 
Escorial T-ll-5. 

/ •*' 

9 KaTal&iv -X ; Karai^iv -all other mss. 

a C/. Priscian, //is£. Grammatica xi, 1 (i, pp. 548, 14-549, 
1 [Hertz]) : " sic igitur supra dicti philosophi [sell. Stoici] 
etiam participium aiebant appellationem esse reciprocam, id 
est avravaKXaoTov Trpooyyoptav* hoc modo : legens est lector 
et lector legens, cursor est currens et currens cursor, amator 
est amans et amans amator, vel nomen verbale vel modum 
verbi casualem." 

6 The correction, koX npoo-qyopLwvt is required because the 
Stoics had restricted 5vop,a to proper nouns and had made a 
separate part of speech called npoa-qyopla to cover common 
nouns and noun adjectives (Diogenes Laertius, vii, 57-58 



called reciprocals by the dialecticians a on the ground 
that they have the force of nouns, that is of appel- 
latives, 6 as for example the reflecting instead of re- 
flective and the abstaining instead of abstinent man. c 
7. The prepositions, for their part, can be likened 
to capitals and pedestals and bases as being not 
speech but rather appurtenances of speech. Consider 
too that they resemble bits and pieces of words d 
like the fragmentary letters and dashes used by 
those who write in haste. For " incoming " and 
11 outgoing " are plainly contractions of " coming 
within " and " going without," " foregoing " of 
M going before," and " undersetting " of " setting 
underneath," just as it is, of course, by quickening 
and abridging the expression that for " pelting with 

[8. V.F. ii, frag. 147 and iii, p. 213, 27-31]), which the gram- 
marians, however, continued to call ovopara or treated as a 
sub-class of ovopa (Dionysius Thrax, Ars Grammatical p. 23, 
2-3 and pp. 33, 6-34, 2 [Uhlig] with Scholia in Dionysii 
Thracis Artem Grammaticam, pp. 214, 17-215, 3 and p. 356, 
7-23 and pp. 517, 33-518, 16 [Hilgard]). 

The Stoics, for whom the sage alone is </>p6vtpos and 
o(j>pov€i, could runV 
<f>povujv must always be o (frpovijios and 6 aoxffpovwv 6 oaxj>po)v and 

a<x>(f>pojv and alone <f>povei and ouxfrpovel, could hold that 

even that 6 <f>p6vtfJLos is always 6 <f>povojvi since the sage's 
exercise of virtue is continual and unremitting (S. V.F. i, 
frags. 216 [p. 52, 25-33] and 569 ; iii, p. 149, 16-18). Never- 
theless, they did distinguish between o <f>p6vinos and 6 <f>povwv 
(S. V.F. iii, p. 64, 3-5 ; cf. iii, frag. 244) ; and the same 
distinction between the appellative and the participle is 
implied by Chrysippus in S.V.F. iii, frag. 243 (De Stoic. 
Repug. 1046 f — 1047 a infra). 

d ovopdrwy here must have been meant in this general 
sense, since Plutarch proceeds to represent the prepositions in 
composition as fragments of adverbs and not of what he calls 
nouns. Yarro also appears to have taken the prepositions, 
which he called " praeverbia," to be adverbs (frag. 267, 4-7 
[Funaioli, Gram-mat icae Romanae Fragmenta i, p. 286]). 



(1011) " \i8ofio\elv M Kal " tolx^P^X € ^ v "* €mTaj(uvovT€s 
Kal o<f)iyyovT€s ttjv (fypdaiv Xeyovat. 

8. Ato xpeiav \l£v Ttva tu> Xoyco TTapi^erai 
tovtojv €kclgtov, fiepos 8k Xoyov Kal oroix^ov 
ovSev ion, ttXtjv wanep eiprjrai to prjfjia Kal 
rovvofia, noiovvra ttjv irpwTrjv to t aXrjOts Kal 
to ifrevSos SexofjLevYjv avvOeacv, fjv oi fiev irpoTaoiv 
ol 8' aijlajfjLa HXaTa>v 8e Xoyov 7rpoor]y6p€VK€v. 

1 TVX<*)pVX€lV -X ; TOLXOpVX€LV "€. 

° Cf. Ammonius, De Interpretatione, p. 12, 27-30 and for 
the aroix€iov added by Plutarch in explanation of ficpos ibid,, 
p. 64, 26-27 and S.V.F. ii, frag. 148 (p. 45, 9-11) with 
Scholia in Dionysii Thracis Artem Grammaticam, p. 356, 
1-4 and pp. 514, 35-515, 12 (Hilgard). 

b See 1009 c s-upra. Of the six " parts of speech ' ■ besides 
noun and verb which had there been listed as present in 



stones " and " breaking into houses " men say 
" stoning " and " housebreaking.' ' 

8. Consequently, while each of these renders some 
service to speech, none is a part of speech, that is a 
constituent element of it,° except, as has been said, 6 
the verb and the noun, for these produce the first 
combination admitting of truth and falsity, that 
combination which has been styled pronouncement 
by some and proposition by others but by Plato 

Iliad i, 185 Plutarch has accounted for all except the adverb 
(impfyqfia). With his neglect of this cf. what is said of the 
Stoics, tol iinpprj^ara ovt€ Xoyov ovre apiQpov Tj£iu)<jav, napa- 
<t>vdhi /ecu im^yXXiSi avra 7rap€LKaaavT€s (Scholia in Dionysii 
Thracis Artem Grammaticam, p. 356, 15-16 and p. 520, 16-18 
[Hilgard]), for whose treatment of the adverb cf. M. Pohlenz, 
Kleine Schriften i (Hildesheim, 1965), p. 55. 







This essay, Plutarch says at the very beginning, was 
written because the two sons to whom he addresses 
it thought that he ought to bring together in a 
separate treatise what he had frequently said and 
had here and there written of the way he understood 
Plato's doctrine of the soul, since this interpretation 
of his was not easy to manage otherwise and was in 
need of vindication. 

The two sons addressed, who were themselves not 
the oldest of Plutarch's children (cf. Consolatio ad 
Uccorem 608 c and 609 d), could not have been much 
less than twenty years old when they made this 
suggestion, for it is assumed that they are familiar 
both with their father's earlier writings and also with 
most of the extensive literature about the disputed 
passage of the Timaeus (cf. 1012 d and 1027 a [chap. 
29 init.] infra). Plutarch, therefore, could not have 
been much less than forty-five years old and probably 
was a good deal older when he wrote the essay. In 
it he refers (1013 e infra) to an earlier treatise of his 
on the cosmogony as Plato meant it ; and what in 
Plat. Quaest. IV is together with II the essence of 
the interpretation developed in the present essay he 
there had already called to ttoWolkis £</>' -qyiiov Xeyofie- 
vov (1003 a). Aspects of it or parallels to certain aspects 
of it appear in the Quaest. Co?iviv., the De E, and the 



De hide ; but there is no conclusive evidence to 
prove that any of these is earlier or later than the 
present essay. 

The essay is in form a commentary on Timaeus 35 
a 1 — 36 b 5 and falls into two parts, each of which is 
begun by way of preface with the quotation of that 
section of the Platonic passage with which it deals, 
the first (chaps. 1-28 [1012 b— 1027 a]) with the 
quotation of Timaeus 35 a 1-b 4 and the second 
(chaps. 29-33 [1027 a— 1030 c]) b with that of Timaeus 
35 b 4—36 b 5. 

This second part is expressly divided into three 
sections, in each of which one specific question is 
discussed and answered (1027 c-d) : first, what the 
whole numbers are that Plato adopts in, the double 
and triple intervals and that will permit the insertion 
of the means described by him (1027 d-f and 1017 
c — 1022 c [chaps. 30 and 11-19]) ; second, whether 
these numbers are to be arranged in a single row or 
in the figure of a lambda (1022 c-e and 1027 f — 
1028 a [chaps. 20 and 30 b]) ; and, third, what is 
their function or for what effect are they employed 
in the composition of the soul (1028 a — 1030 c 

In 1029 d here Plutarch asserts what in Quaest. Conviv. 
745 c-f he denies in his own person but then has Ammonius 
assert. It would be equally easy to make out a specious but 
inconclusive case for the priority of either passage to the 

6 The traditional numbers of the chapters and the pagina- 
tion of Stephanus are retained, though they are confusing 
because they antedate the discovery and correction of the 
displacement in the mss. The order in the text as rearranged 
is: chaps. 1-10 (1012 a— 1017 c), chaps. 21-30 (1022 e— 
1027 f), chaps. 11-20 (1017 c— 1022 e), chaps. 30 b-33 
(1027 f— 1030 c). 



[chaps. 31-33]). All this by Plutarch's own admission 
(1027 a [chap. 29 iniL] and 1022 c [chap. 20 init.]) 
contains little that is original ; and it is of interest 
chiefly for the information that it provides about 
earlier treatments of Timaeus 35 b 4 — 36 b 5 and 
about the arithmological, musicological, and astro- 
nomical speculations related to them. With regard 
to the third question Plutarch rejects all the astro- 
nomical interpretations that he reports in chaps. 
31-32 and says that the ratios and numbers in this 
passage of the Timaeus are meant to signify the 
harmony and concord of the soul itself (chap. 33 
[1029 d-e and 1030 b-c]). As to the second question, 
which receives the briefest treatment, he accepts 
Grantor's arrangement because he thinks it almost 
explicitly prescribed by the order of the numbers in 
Plato's text. The treatment of the first question is 
the longest, and in the course of it Plutarch reveals 
some of his characteristic weaknesses. He is aware 
of the correct contention that Plato is concerned not 
with any particular integers but with the ratios that 
alone are specified ; and yet he rejects it, "even if 
it be true," not only because it makes the matter 
harder to understand but also because it would pre- 
vent him from indulging himself in the arithmological 
speculations about the " remarkable numbers " to 
which he devotes several chapters (1027 o-f and 
1017 c— 1019 b [chaps. 30 and 11-14]). Then as the 
base for the intervals into which the means are 
inserted he chooses 192 instead of 384 because " the 
4 leimma ' will have its ratio expressed in the numbers 
that Plato has given, 256 to 243, if 192 is made the 
first number," thus arguing with misplaced literalness 
as if it were the very numbers and not just the ratio 



that Plato intended and at the same time showing 
that he could not have worked out the problem, 
since 192 will not serve the purpose of clearing the 
fractions after the first fourth (1020 c-d [chap. 16 sub 
jinem] and 1022 a [chap. 18 subjinem]). 

The originality of the first part of the essay is 
emphasized by Plutarch himself. At the very begin- 
ning he says that the interpretation here advocated 
requires vindication because it is opposed to that of 
most Platonists (1012 b), and after criticizing the 
interpretations of Timaeus 35 a 1-b 4 by Xenocrates 
and Crantor he repeats in beginning his own that he 
must vindicate what is unusual and paradoxical about 
it (1014 a). In the first place, he insists that contrary 
to what the Platonists contend Plato must have 
meant the generation of the universe and its soul to 
be understood literally as a beginning, for otherwise 
soul could not be senior to body and so there would 
be nothing to Plato's argument against the atheists 
in the Laws (chap. 4, cf. chap. 3 init.). Plutarch 
holds, therefore, that according to Plato god did 
literally bring into being the soul and the body of 
the universe, though not from nothing, which is 
impossible, but from precosmic principles that had 
always existed, an amorphous and chaotic corpore- 
ality and a self-moved and irrational motivity that 
kept the former in disorderly turmoil (chap. 5). This 
irrational psychic principle Plutarch identifies with 
the " infinitude " of the Philebus, the " congenital 
desire " and " inbred character " of the Politicus, the 
" necessity " and even (1024 c) the precosmic 
yeveais of Timaeus 52 D and says is openly called in 
the Laws " disorderly and maleficent soul " (1014 d — 
1015 a [chap. 6]). It is, moreover, this, he maintains, 


that is the principle of evil whereby Plato avoided the 
absurdity into which the Stoics later fell, for the evil 
in the universe must have a cause and this cause 
cannot be god, who is entirely good, or matter, which 
is inert and without quality, but must be soul, which 
is the cause and principle of motion (1015 a-e [chaps. 
6-7]) ; and this irrational soul, " soul in itself," it is 
that in the Pkaedrus is proved to be indestructible 
because not subject to generation and not subject 
to generation because self-moved, the precosmic 
principle from which god by introducing into it 
intelligence and reason created the soul of the 
universe (chaps. 8-9)? as he created its body out of 
precosmic matter by removing from this the cause of 
its turbulence and introducing into it form and 
symmetry (cf. 1015 e and 1016 d— 1017 a). 

The " creation " in the Timaeus had already been 
taken literally by Aristotle and others but so far as is 
known not by anyone regarded as a Platonist, a and 
no one at all is known to have anticipated Plutarch 
in interpreting it with a theory of the cosmic soul 
such as his. 6 This theory of his, despite all narrow 
literalism c and despite his protest against interpret- 

a See note a on 1013 e (chap. 4 init.) infra. 

b Plutarch's claim to the originality of his interpretation 
was accepted by Thevenaz (L'Ame du Monde, pp. 55-56), 
and Heliner argued that there is no reason to doubt it (De 
An. Proc, pp. 69-70), though Plutarch's " general lack of 
originality " made H. M. Jones doubt that he could have 
been the author of the theory (Platonism of Plutarch, p. 80). 

c Such as the assumption that Ihia in the Posidonian in- 
terpretation must mean " idea " (see 1023 b-c [chap. 22] 
with note c on 1023 b) and the crucial assumption that 
7rp€(jpvT€pa used of soul must mean senior in the sense of 
earlier in origin (see 1013 e-f [chap. 4] and 1016 a-b [chap. 
8]), concerning which cf. Cherniss, Aristotle's Criticism of 



ing Plato for the promotion of one's own doctrines 
(1013 b), was not the consequence of his literal 
interpretation of the Timaeus but was the formulation 
of his own theology and theodicy, which, to be 
plausibly represented as in his words " something 
that agrees with Plato," required the " creation " in 
the Timaeus to be taken literally. This is indicated 
by the very reasons that he here gives for adopting 
this interpretation (1013 e-f and 1015 a-e) a and even 
more clearly by his way of manipulating Platonic 
texts to support it. Not only is there nothing in those 
texts to justify him in identifying with soul, as he 
does here, the " infinitude " of the Philebus or the 
11 necessity " or yeveats of the Timaeus, but these 
identifications are incompatible even with what he 
says in other passages himself. 6 When he identifies 

Plato . . ., pp. 424-426 and note 365 on pp. 429-431 and 
E. de Strycker in Aristotle and Plato in the Mid-Fourth 
Century, ed. I. During and G. E. L. Owen (Goteborg, 1960), 
pp. 90-91. F. Romano is mistaken, however, in supposing 
that Plutarch's interpretation w r as simply the consequence of 
his " cieco e pedissequo ossequio al verbo di Platone," which 
made him incapable of distinguishing logos from mythos 
(Sophia, xxxiii [1965], p. 119 sub finem). 

a Cf. Zeller, Phil, Griech. in, 2, p. 191 ; Andresen, Logos 
und Nomos, pp. 281, 284, and 290 ; H. Dorrie, Philomathes : 
Studies . . . in Memory of Philip Merlan (The Hague, 
1971), p. 46 ; and especially Babut, Plutarque et le Sto'icisme, 
p. 287, who considers this essay to be primarily a polemic 
against Stoic monism and a continuation of Plutarch's anti- 
wStoic works (op. cit., pp. 139-142). 

b For the dneipta of the Philebus see page 1S5, note d 
(chap. 6) ; for the ytvtms °f Timaeus 52 d see notes c and d 
on 1024 c (chap. 24) and the comparison with De Facie 
926 f in note a on 1016 f (chap. 9); and for the dvdyKr\ of 
the Timaeus see note con 1014 e (chap. 6) with Cherniss, 
Aristotle's Criticism of Plato . . ., pp. 446-450. As to the 



with irrational soul the " congenital desire " and 
" inbred character " in the myth of the Politicus, 
adapting for this a quotation of Politicus 273 b 4-6, 
he suppresses Plato's phrase, to aajfiaroetSes rrjs 
avyKpd<7€U)s, which would have embarrassed his in- 
terpretation a ; when he insists that in the proof of 
Phaedrus 245 c 5 — 246 a 2 the soul that is not subject 
to generation is meant to be only " the soul that 
before the generation of the universe keeps all things 
in disorderly motion " (1016 a, 1016 c, 1017 a-b 
[chaps. 8-9]), he ignores both the words foxy -naua 
with which that proof begins (Phaedrus 245 c 5) and 
of which the conclusion is certainly meant to hold 
and the express statement that it is impossible for 
the self-moving mover that sustains the universe, i.e. 
the cosmic soul, either to perish or to come to be 

last, were dvdyK^ as Plutarch here maintains, the precosmic 
irrational soul from which by mixture with vovs the soul of 
the cosmos was created, his interpretation would be open 
to the objection that he opposes to Crantor's (1013 b-c, 
10:23 a), for what he calls the psychogony would not be dis- 
tinguishable from the cosmogony, since Plato says ^c/xcty/ieVq 
yap odv 17 tovo€ rod Koofiov ycveois £( dvdyKrjs T€ Kal vov ovorar 
oews cyewyOr) ( Timaeus 47 e 5—48 a 2). 

a See note /on 1015 a (chap. 6). In this passage he also 
substitutes dvayicr) for the €i/xap/A€vr; of the Politicus (see 
note e on 1015 a) ; cf. his substitution of a^aipa for Plato's 
<f>opd or kvkXos (see note / on 1029 c [chap. 32]) and his 
insertion of vXtj into quasi-quotations of the Timaeus (see the 
end of note <% page 173 [chap. 3]). Sometimes by omitting 
words or curtailing the original he alters the meaning of a 
passage (see note c on Plat. Quaest. 1004 e supra), thereby 
eliminating what would otherwise impugn his interpretation 
(see note d on 1016 f [chap. 9] and notes/, 6, and c on 1023 
e-f [chap. 23]) ; and sometimes he inserts into an apparent 
quotation what is in fact an erroneous inference of his own 
(see note b on Plat. Quaest. 1002 f supra). 



(Phaedrus 245 d 7-e 2) ; and, when he asserts that 
by all these Plato meant what in the Laws he called 
disorderly and maleficent soul and that this is " soul 
in itself," which became the soul of the universe 
(1014 d-e [chap. 6] and 1015 e [chap. 7]), he disregards 
the fact that the evil kind or aspect of soul there 
posited is never said to be precosmic or antecedent 
to beneficent soul or that out of which a single 
cosmic soul was created but to the contrary is repre- 
sented as being coeval with the good souls, the 
movers of the celestial bodies and the universe, and 
distinct from them. a 

All this is far from literal interpretation of Plato's 
words ; and so is the identification of the " divisible 
being " in the psychogony of the Timaeus with the 
irrational and maleficent soul elicited from the Laws 
(1014 d-e [chap. 6] and 1015 E [chap. 7]). Neither in 
the psychogony nor elsewhere in the Timaeus is 
there any mention of such an irrational soul or of 
any irrational element in the cosmic soul b ; and 

° Cf. Laws 896 d 10-e 6, 898 c (3 — 899 b 9, 904 a 6-c 4 
and e 5-7, 906 a 2-7 ; see Cherniss, Proceedings of the 
American Philosophical Society, xcviii (1954), p. 26, n. 29. 
In De Iside 370 f Plutarch himself implies that what he takes 
to be the maleficent soul of the Laws is not antecedent to 
the beneficent soul but that the two are coeval and distinct, 
for he says that according to Plato there (i.e. Laws 896 n 10- 
e 6) the universe is moved by at least two souls, one beneficent 
and the other adverse to this. 

b Cf. Cherniss, Aristotle's Criticism of Plato . . ., p. 446 
with notes 386 and 387 and Proceedings of the American 
Philosophical Society, xcviii (1954), p. 26 with notes 26-28. 
The soul that in Timaeus 44 a 7-b 1 is said to become avovs 
is only the human soul when disturbed in consequence of its 
embodiment (cf. 86 b 2 — 87 a 7) ; even in that soul there 
is no irrationality in the " immortal part " produced by the 


Plutarch's assertion that this is what Plato meant by 
ovaias . . . rrjs av rrepl ra acofiara yLyvojAevrjs fJLeptcrTfjs 
(Timaeus 35 a 2-3) is made without any supporting 
argument a and apparently in reliance upon the mere 
assumption that in the Laws the proper name is used 
for that to which Plato elsewhere must have been 
referring covertly in enigmatic and metaphorical 
terms, 6 a principle so pliable that in the very passage 
where it is enunciated this maleficent soul of the 
Laws is identified not, as it is in this essay, with the 
" divisible being " but with the " difference," the 
Qarepov, of the psychogony. c 

Identifying the " divisible being " of the psycho- 
gony with precosmic irrational soul from which god 
by introducing into it intelligence and reason created 
the soul of the universe ought to imply moreover 
that the " indivisible being " there is vovs ; and Plu- 
tarch does explicitly make this identification also, d 

demiurge, the circles of sameness and difference, when not so 
disturbed (44 b 1-7), while the " mortal and passible part " 
of it (i.e. the Ovfiocioes and €Tri0u/Lu'a), which Plutarch derives 
from the " divisible being," is in the Timaeus a confection 
of the '* created gods " and is unrelated to the ingredients 
or the result of the psychogony (see note c on 1026 d [chap. 
27 sub finem]). 

° The later attempts to account for the term /zepiori? ( 1024 a 
[chap. 23] and 1024 c [chap. 24]) are not arguments in sup- 
port of this identification and would not be cogent if they 
were intended to be so. 

6 Cf. 1014 D (. . . €V 0€ TOIS NoflOlS CLVTLKpVS . • • €ip7)K€ 

. . .) with De hide 370 E-P (noXXaxov p,sv olov . . . -napa- 
KaAimTOfxcvos • • • iv Se roc? Nd/aots . • « ov 8t* cuViy/uouv ovbe 
ovfifioXiKcos dXXa Kvpiots ovofiaoLv • . .)• 

c De Iside 370 e-f ; see page 251, note c on 1025 v infra. 

d See infra 1014 d-e (ev Se Ti/xcu'w rfjv ttJ d/xcpicrroj ovyK€- 

paVVUpL€V7JV • • • aVTT) • . • VOV . . . /JL€T€GX €V > * va KOGfJLOV ^V\V 



although in the Timaeus not only is there no men- 
tion of precosmic vovs as an ingredient in the 
constitution of soul but in a passage from which Plu- 
tarch conveniently omits vovs a the latter is said to 
arise in the soul after its constitution and organiza- 
tion and as a result of its contact with the ideas. 
Plutarch's one attempt to justify his identification is 
an explication of the sense in which the terms dfiepes 
Kal afiepiarov are used ; but in this sense even 
according to him they characterize the incorporeal 
and intelligible as such, and so they are in fact more 
appropriately used of the being of the ideas and can 
be supposed to refer to vovs only because he takes 
vovs to be a vo7]r6v. b Since for him it is god, how- 
ever, the votjtov par excellence c and the only true 
being,** that is vovs, e although in arguing against the 
Posidonians he contends that god's relation to soul 
is that of artificer to finished product (1023 c infra), 
he nevertheless asserts that the i>o£? introduced by 

yevrjTai), 1016 c with note c, 1024 a (page 229, note d), 1024 c-d 
(o 8« vovs • • • eyycvoficvos §€ ti} faxf) •••">} Koivcovia yiyovzv 
avrwv t tu> afiepiaTw to fieptarov • • •) with note c there for an 
additional misrepresentation of the Platonic text. 

a Timaeus 37 c 1-3 ; see infra 1023 f with note c there. 

b See infra page 214, note a and the references there to 
Plat. Quaest. 1002 c-d and 1002 e. 

c See infra 1016 b with note d and the reference there to 
Plat. Quaest. 1002 b ; and cf. Be hide 372 a, where Osiris 
is the ovola vov\tt\ of which the sun is the visible light. 

d Cf De E 392 A (. . . fiovrjv nova) TrpoarjKovoav tj)v rov slvai 
npooayopevoiv • • •) and 393 a-b. 

e Cf. De hide 37 1 a (in the soul of the universe Osiris is 
vovs Kal X6yos)i 373 B (Osiris is Xoyos avros Kad* iavrov dfiiytjs 
Kal diradrjs)* and 376 c (6 rov deov vovs Kal Xoyos iv rto dopdraj 
Kal cu^avei fitpvKws ctj yiveoiv vtto Kiirijo€u)S nporjXOev). 


god into the irrational soul is itself a part of god a ; 
and so he implicitly makes the " indivisible being " 
of the Timaeus substantially identical with the 
demiurge, which is itself to renounce the literal 
interpretation of Plato's text. Moreover, in 1021* 
c-d (chap. 24), where of the three, ov and x^pa an( l 
yeveais, said in Timaeus 52 d 2-4 to have been 
before heaven came to be, Plutarch identifies the 
last with the irrational soul, the second with matter, 
and the first with the intelligible, the real existence 
that always remains fixed and of which semblances 
are dispersed in this world, he introduces without 
explanation or reference to the text that he has 
quoted a vovs which was " abiding and immobile all 
by itself " before it got into the soul ; and this vovs 
he explicitly identifies with the " indivisible being " 
of the psychogony. This must be the vovs that is 
substantially identical with god, 6 added as a fourth 
to the precosmic three of Timaeus 52 d 2-4, for it 
cannot be identical with the 6V, which Plutarch him- 
self here clearly — and correctly (cf. Timaeus 52 a 1 -4 
and c 5-d 1 with 48 e 5-6) — treats as the being of 
the ideas, the stable and real existence with which, 
as he says, the circular motion of the soul made 
rational is most closely in contact ; but this is to 
make Plato omit from the three that he lists as pre- 
cosmic the " indivisible being " which he clearly 
treats as such in the psychogony and which must be the 
ov among the three that he here lists, not a fourth 
such as that gratuitously introduced by Plutarch. 

° See infra 1016 c with note d and Plat. Quaest. 1001 c 
referred to there. 

b See 1016 c, Plat. Quaest. 1001 c, and the passages of the 
Be hide, which are cited in the last two preceding notes. 



That the " indivisible being " of the psychogony 
is the being of the ideas and the " divisible being M 
the dispersed being of phenomena, not vovs and the 
irrational soul, as Plutarch insists, and not ingredients 
of soul but external to soul, which after it has been 
constituted judges them by coming into contact now 
with the one and again with the other, this is clear 
from another passage of the Timaeus, which is 
partially paraphrased and partially quoted by 
Plutarch himself but for his own purpose and in a 
mutilated form that obscures its significance.^ At 
the beginning of this passage which he omits (Ti- 
maeus 37 a 2-4) it is emphasized that the ingre- 
dients of soul were three. This was twice said in the 
passage of the psychogony (Timaeus 35 a 6-7 and b 1) 
(juoted by him at the beginning of his essay (1012 
b-c infra), where it was explained that of these three 
ingredients one is a " third kind of being " blended 
by the demiurge between the " indivisible being " 
and the " divisible being " and the other two are a 
sameness and a difference also constructed between 
the indivisible and the divisible sameness and 
difference. This intermediacy of the ingredients 
sameness and difference eluded Plutarch altogether, 

a Timaeus 37 a 2-c 5, where in 37 a 5-b 3 the soul of the 
universe is said now to touch something that has ovoia 
oKf&aoT-qi i.e. n€pLOTrf (cf. Plotinus, Enn. iv, ii, 1, line 1:2 
and Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum ii, p. 298, 24-25 [Diehl]), 
which is one of ra yiyvopcva, i.e. the perceptible of 37 b 6, 
and now something that has ovoia afiepioTos* which is one of 
ret Kara ravra cxovra aet, i.e. the rational of 37 c 1 {cf. 
Proclus, ibid., p. 300, 5-10 and 17-19 fDiehll and Cherniss, 
Aristotle's Criticism of Plato . . ., pp. 407-408) ; for Plu- 
tarch's paraphrase of 37 a 5-b 3 and quotation of 37 b 3- 
c 5 see infra pages 225, note /and 227, notes b and c\ 


as it has eluded many modern interpreters ; and 
that of the " third kind of being " he misinterpreted 
by neglecting the statement that this is only one 
ingredient of soul and by taking it to be the literal 
mixture of " indivisible " and " divisible being " a 
identified with vovs and the irrational soul, with the 
result that in fact he made the soul of the universe a 
mixture of these two ingredients alone b or again a 

° The " blending " (ovvtKepdoaTo [Timaeus 35 a 3]) of 
the Vk third kind of being " like the construction of the inter- 
mediate sameness and difference (/card ravrd awear-qaev 
[35 a 5]) is a figurative expression for the construction of a 
mean between two extremes (cf. Porphyry in Proclus, In 
Platonis Timaeum ii, pp. 162, 31-163, 1 [Diehl] and Proclus, 
itrid. t ii, pp. 119, 14-150, 24 and p. 156, 16-24 [Diehl] ; 
Themistius, De Anima, p. 11, 1-4; Simplicius, De minima, 
p. 251), 11-29 ; [Philoponus], De Anitna iii [i.e. Stephanus], 
p. 504, 8-12). The figure is used by Plutarch himself when 
he says that means involve r-qv tu>v ax-pan- . . . npos aAA^Aa 8td 
rod Xoyov ovyKpaotv {Plat. Quaest. 1009 a-b) ; and yet, 
when he uses as a " likeness of the proportion " in the 
psychogony the insertion of two means between extremes 
in Timaeus 31 b 4 — 32 c 4, he makes of the mathematical 
procedure in that passage a physical " fusion " and employs 
in his resume of it the words eKepaaev and awipn^ which 
Plato there does not use in any form (see infra 1025 a-h 
[chap. 25] with note /there). 

b See 1014 E (chap. 6) : avrr] yap rjv i/>vxrj Kad' iavrr^v, vov 
be • . . /jL€T€ox€v» *va Koofiov faxr) ycvT/Tatand 1024 A (chap. 2^) : 
♦ • • Koapiov ipvxrjv ovviorr^oiv e£ vnoKeifievcvv rijs re Kpe'nrovos 
ovatas /cat a/xcpt'oTou /cat rrjs ^etpovo?, t)v nept rd oxo/xara fjLcpioT'qv 
K€KArjK€v> ... A striking modern parallel is provided ny P. 
Friedlander (Plato iii [Princeton University Press, 1969 1, }). 
366), who without reference to Plutarch and despite his biblio- 
graphy (pp. 543-544) in obvious ignorance of the correct 
construction of Timaeus 35 a 1-b 4 says : " The ingredients 
. . . are, first, the being that is indivisible ... and second, 
the being that is divisible. . . . That would be enough, but 
in order to emphasize the difficulty of the mixture . . . he 



blend of four ingredients when to account for the 
obvious presence of sameness and difference in the 
psychogony he took these to be two extremes with 
the " indivisible being " and the " divisible " as two 
intermediates between them. a Plato's emphatic 
warning that the ingredients of soul are three he 
simply disregarded. 

Similar treatment of Plato's text and similar 
internal contradictions characterize Plutarch's literal 
interpretation of the generation of the physical 
universe. A single example will suffice. Timaeus 
begins his account of the creation by saying in a 
passage on which Plutarch lays much stress that god 
took over all that was visible b but later says that he 
constructed the world visible and tangible. Instead 
of explaining how these two statements can both be 

adds as a third component the mixture of the previous two — 
or, as it may be put differently (35 a 3-4), the mixture of 
4 the same ' and ' the different.' " 

a See 1025 b (chap. 25, where the proportion of four terms 
in Timaeus 32 b 3-7 is expressly cited as parallel to this) 
and note b there with references. It is the *' divisible being " 
itself that Plutarch elsewhere calls intermediate, transferring 
to it, which identified with irrational soul or " soul in itself " 
he makes an ingredient of " created soul," the intermediacy 
of the three ingredients in the psychogony (see 1015 b 
[chap. 6] with note c, 1024 b [chap. 23] with note rf, and 
1024 c [chap. 24] with note d), two of which, sameness and 
difference, his interpretation fits so ill that in trying to explain 
them he flagrantly contradicts himself (see 1024 d [chap, 24] 
with note /, 1025 a [chap. 24] with note 6, and 1027 a 
[chap. 28] with note a). 

6 Timaeus 30 a 3-4 (nav ooov ?jv oparov 7rapa\afia>v • • .) ; 
see infra 1016 d with note g. 

c Timaeus 32 b 7-8 (. . . awco-T^caTo ovpavov oparov kcu 
dnTov) ; cf. 36 e 5-6. 


taken literally Plutarch simply omits " visible and 
tangible " from his quotation of the latter passage, 6 
for he maintains that god did not create the tangi- 
bility of the matter out of which he formed the 
physical universe but that this was perceptible and 
corporeal c ; and yet elsewhere he insists that 
Platonic " matter M is entirely without quality and 
becomes tangible and visible by participating in the 
intelligible and simulating it. d 

So Plutarch's interpretation upon closer inspection 
proves to be far from " literal." His motive was not 
strict fidelity to Plato's words but concern to enlist 
Plato's authority for the proposition that the universe 
was brought into being by god ; and, since he says 
himself why he thought it necessary to insist upon 
such a beginning of the universe, the course of his 
reasoning can be plausibly explicated in the following 
manner. Soul as such must have existed without 
beginning, for, as Plato says himself, soul is self- 
moving motion, which itself is not subject to genera- 
tion or destruction. This soul cannot be the soul of 
the universe, however, for, if it were, it would without 
beginning have always been producing in body the 
motions of the corporeal universe just as they are 
now organized by the soul of the universe € ; and this 

a For the bearing of the contradiction on the question 
whether the creation was meant to be taken literally cf 
L. Taran in Essays in Ancient Greek Philosophy edited by 
J. P. Anton with G. L. Kustas (Albany, State Univ. of New 
York Press, 1971), pp. 382-384 with notes 98-104. 

b See infra 1016 f with note d. 

c See infra pages 183, note d; 185, note c; 229, note i. 

d See infra 1014 f with note e and 1013 c with note d. 

e See infra 1030 c (chap. 33 sub finem) % and Plat. Quaest. 

1003 A-B. 



corporeal universe, if it had been so organized always 
and without beginning, would be coeval with soul, in 
which case there would be neither cogent evidence 
for the existence of god (see infra 1013 e-f) nor any 
need of his existence. Therefore the existence of 
god requires that the soul of the universe have had 
a beginning antecedent to that of the corporeal uni- 
verse organized by it. This beginning, however, 
could not have been a coming to be from what was 
not soul, since as soul it is without beginning, and so 
could have been only a change in preexisting soul 
such as would account for the regular motions of an 
ordered corporeal universe, i.e. a change in self- 
motion from the disorderly or demented to the 
orderly and rational, w T hich must have been caused 
by the introduction of vovs into the soul already 
existing. Therefore Plato, despite what he seems to 
say in the Timaeus, must have meant not that the 
demiurge created the substance of soul but that he 
compounded the soul of the universe by blending 
vovs with irrational soul, the vestigial irrationality of 
which is the cause of the evil in the universe as the 
rationality imposed upon it by god is the cause of 
the good b ; and consequently the essential in- 
gredients in the psychogony must be these two, both 

a According to Atticus, who adopted Plutarch's interpreta- 
tion (see note a on 1013 e infra), Plato, reasoning that what 
has not come to be needs no creator or guardian for its well- 
being, Iva flTj aTTOOTepTjOT} TOV KOOfJLOV T7JS TTpOVOldS d^CtAc TO 

ayiv-qrov avrov (Atticus, frag, iv [Baudry] =£usebius, Praep. 
Evang. xv, 6, 2 [ii, p. 359, 14-18, Mras]) ; and Plutarch is said 
to have called the divine cause irpovoia (Proclus, In Platonis 
Timaeum i, p. 415, 18-20 [Diehl] ; see PJaf. Quaest. 1007 c 
with note h there). 

b See infra 1026 d-e (chap. 27) and 1027 a (chap. ■!$). 



preexisting and without beginning, vovs and the 
self-motion that is soul in itself. 

This interpretation has won for Plutarch the praise 
of some modern scholars for acuteness and ingenuity 
and even for " fathoming the thought of Plato better 
than did Plato's immediate disciples." a In fact, it 
is instructive chiefly because it shows how Plutarch 
could manipulate for his own purpose philosophical 
texts still available for comparison with his treatment 
of them and what arbitrariness and contradictions are 
involved in an attempt to prove Platonic the dogma 
of " creation " as an historical beginning. 

A Latin translation of the essay made by Turnebus 
was published in 1552. b The first edition of the 
Greek text restored to its original order was pub- 
lished in 1848 by A. D. Maurommates c ; and in 
1873 B. Miiller, who in 1870 had independently 

a So Th£venaz, VAme du Monde, p. 95. Helmer (Be An. 
Proc, p. 66) says that Plutarch's " Scharfsinn " can seldom 
be refused recognition. R. Del Re tries to defend Plutarch's 
interpretation even in the crucial and embarrassing matter 
of the " divisible being " (Studi Italiani di Filologia 
Classica, N.S. xxiv [1949], pp. 51-64 [n.b. pp. 56-57]) ; and 
J. B. Skemp, while taking the " ' analytic ' view of the 
Timaeus ... as at any rate the more probable," nevertheless 
treats Plutarch's interpretation very seriously (The Theory 
of Motion in Plato's Later Dialogues, Enlarged Edition 
[Amsterdam, 1967], pp. x, xiv, 26-27, 59, 76, 11 1-1 12, and 

b Plutarchi Chaeronei De Procreatione Animi in Timaeo 
Platonis Adriano Turnebo interprete. Parisiis, Ex officina 
Adriani Turnebi Typographi Regis. M.D. LI I. 

c UXovrdpxov ncpl rrjs eV Tt/xato> iftvxoyovlas , eVSoyro? kcli tls 
T17P dpxalav ovvexaav dTTOKaraarrjaavros 'Avhpeov A. Mavpop,- 
fidrov KopKvpalov, 'Ev 'AQTJvais<> 1848. The text, based chiefly 
on that of Diibner, is preceded by an essay on the restoration 
of the proper order and followed by ten pages of notes. 



discovered this order, published another edition of 
it.° There are two monographs devoted entirely to 
the essay. One of them by Joseph Helmer is entitled 
Zu Plutarchs " De animae procreatione in Timaeo " : 
Ein Beitrag sum Verstdndnis des Platon-Deuters 
Plutarch (Wiirzburg, 1937 [Diss. Miinchen]). The 
other by Pierre Thevenaz, L'Ame du Monde, le 
Devenir et la Matter e chez Plutarque (Paris, 1938), is a 
systematic study preceded by an annotated trans- 
lation into French of the first part of the essay, i.e. 
chaps. 1-10 (1012 b— 1017 c) and 21-28 (1022 e— 
1027 a). There are two earlier monographs of wider 
range in which the study of this essay is an important 
part, Plutarchi Chaeronensis studia in Platone ex- 
plicando posita by Herbert Holtorf (Stralesundiae, 
1913 [Diss. Greifswald]) and The Platonism of 
Plutarch by Roger M. Jones (Menasha, 1916 [Diss. 
Chicago]). Unfortunately none of these four authors 
was aware of the correct construction of Timaeus 
35 a 1-b 1, first pointed out in modern times ap- 
parently by G. M. A. Grube (Class, Phil., xxvii 
[1932], pp. 80-82), the crucial passage with which 
Plutarch begins his exposition. 

The De Animae Procreatione in Timaeo is No. 65 in 
the Catalogue of Lamprias and No. 77 in the Planu- 
dean order. The text of it here printed is based 
upon EBeufmr 6 Escor. 72, all of which have been 

Plutarch uber die Seelenschopfung im Timaeus, von 
Berthold Mtiller, Breslau, 1873 (Gymnasium zu St. Elisabet. 
Bericht uber das Schuljahr 1872-1873). The text is based 
chiefly on E, and the apparatus reports mainly the readings 
of that ms„ the Epitome, and the Aldine. 

b r is Leiden B.P.G. 59 and not Voss. 59 as it is called in 
Hubert-Drexler, Moralia vi/l, pp. xvi and xx ; cf. Biblio- 
theca Universitatis Leidensis : Codices Manuscripti — ATI I : 



collated from photostats. In all these mss. there is 
the same displacement of chapters 21-30 (1022 e — 
1027 f) from their proper place immediately after 
chapter 10, a displacement discovered first by A. D. 
Maurommates (nXovrdpxov irtpi rfjs cV Tifiaiw 
ipvxoyovlas . . . [Athens, 1848], pp. i/?'-ie') and later 
independently by B. Miiller (Hermes, iv [1870], pp. 
390-403 b ; cf. v [1871], p. 154) and again still later 
by P. Tannery (Rev. Etudes Grecques, vii [1894], 
pp. 209-211). All these mss., therefore, derive from 
one ancestor, but their differences at the junctures 
resulting from the displacement show that they were 
not all copied from a single archetype and suggest 
the division of them into groups that is confirmed by 
their variations throughout the essay. At these 
junctures E and B are alike ; e and u are alike and 

Codices Bibliothecae Publicae Graeci descripsit K. A. de 
Meyier adiuvante E. Hulshoff Pol (Lugduni Batavorum, 
1965), p. 82. For confirmation of this fact as well as for 
the correct photostats I am obliged to the generosity of 
Dr. de Meyier. 

a I report the readings of Escor. 72 because they seem to 
have remained unknown hitherto. From Oxoniensis Coll. 
Corp. Christi 99 (C.C.C. 99) I report only one correct reading, 
for my collation of this ms. has confirmed the statement 
(Hubert-Drexler, Moralia vi/1, p. xvi) that it is close to f, m, r 
and especially close to r, with which in fact it agrees against 
all others seventy-six times, though it cannot be their source, 
since it disagrees with all of them at least eighteen times, in 
five of which it lacks words that they preserve. For Marciani 
184, 187, and 523, which I have not collated, cf. B. Miiller 
(1873), pp. 3-4 and Hubert-Drexler, op. cit., pp. xv-xvi. 

b Here (p. 403, n. 1) Miiller reports that the correct order 
had already been indicated in a marginal note made by 
Deodat Grohe ; but, since Grohe published his doctoral dis- 
sertation in 1867, his note could scarcely have been made 
before Maurommates' publication. 



different from E, B ; f, m, r are substantially alike 
and different from both E, B and e, u ; and Escor. 72 
agrees in part with e, u and in part with f, m, r (see 
the critical apparatus on 1022 e following 1017 c, 
chapter 21 init.). The text of the Aldine at one 
juncture is closest to that of e, u and at the other 
two agrees with that of m, r. 

B agrees with E (or with E corrected) against all 
the other mss. more than eighty times, indicating 
lacunae where all the others show none but instead 
have words or letters missing from E and B (cf. 
1015 c [ rod . . . 04vtos], 1015 D [ci s . . .' . rrjv], 1024 e 
[tcov . . . eTTLKparel]), omitting words that all the 
others preserve (cf. 1014 a [irepl tovtwv], 1025 b 
[dAAa], 1018 b [ajy]), and preserving words omitted 
by all the others (cf. 1027 c [/ecu TpnrXaaiois\ 1018 a 
[/cat iToiovaai ...]). B alone or in agreement with 
others differs from E in forty-nine places ; but the 
negligence of the scribe of B might be held to 
account for many of these differences a and his own 
acumen for others, 6 although he must have been 
more than acute to have added the /cat that E and 
all the others omit in Stct to /cat ras apyas-. . . (1025 e). c 

° It is difficult to believe that negligence alone can explain 
cvpvdfjLws for the evayfiws of E (1019 a) or avvydaav (unre- 
corded in Hubert-Drexler, Moralia vi/1, p. 179) for the per- 
fectly clear ovirfx r ) aLV °^ E (1021 b). 

6 e.g. for T fj vXrj kcu vn eKcivrjs (1016 d), where E alone 
omits kclI (unrecorded in Hubert-Drexler, ibid., p. 153), and 
for "Apeos (1029 b), where E with all others except f, m, r 
has depos* 

c One of the eight cases of difference added by D. A. 
Russell (Class. Rev., N.S. v [1955], p. 161) to the " crucial 
instance " (p. 170, 9 f. [Hubert-Drexler] = 1018 b : i v ooais 
■fjp,€pais [fioipais]) adduced in Hubert-Drexler, ibid., p. xvi as 
proof that B is independent of E. Of Russell's seven remain- 



This and the i)v Sr) 6 Oeos auros" of B in 1017 a-b, 
where E has rrjv Se avros 6 6eos, a look like genuine 
variants rather than mere " slips " or arbitrary 
emendations ; and so does the Kal that B alone has 
between rco eVoySooj and rco €Tnrpirco in 1022 c 
(chapter 19 sub Ji?ie?n), for something is certainly 
missing here and the erroneous /cat may be a mis- 
reading by B of some sign to that effect in his original. 
There are indications, then, that this essay in B 
was not copied directly from E, though it must be 
admitted that none of them is tantamount to 
definitive proof. 

While e and u are frequently in agreement with 
f, m, r against E and B b and more frequently in 
agreement with E, B against f, m, r, c it is still more 

ing cases two (171. 3 and 176. 20, i.e. [dfi/ty in 1018 b and 
olvtI/ovti in 1020 a) are merely errors in the critical apparatus 
of Hubert-Drexler, four others (150. 13, 159. 12, 163. 10, 
187. 21 [Hubert-Drexler]) are cases in which the text of B 
might be accounted for by the corrections in E, and the 
seventh (156. 8 [Hubert-Drexler] = 1022 e: Orjyovoa for 
dtyovaa) is an error shared by B with u 1 , a fact not recorded 
by Hubert-Drexler, as four other cases of the agreement of 
u with B in error against all the others have also gone un- 
recorded, though to many these might seem to be more 
significant than the " crucial instance " of 1018 b where B 
neglects two letter-spaces left vacant in E between ocrcus and 


rjv 8c avrds 6 deos is the reading of e 1 . Neither this 
nor the reading of B is recorded in Hubert-Drexler (ibid, 9 
p. 154, 26). 

h Besides such cases as 1025 b and 1027 c already men- 
tioned for the agreement of E and B against all the others 
see especially 1018 b ( K al ra i/3') and 1028 a (fMovovovxl ovv). 

c There are more than a score of cases, among which see 
rpira for i-nirpira and the omission of Trpo? ra y Kal ^ Kal a 
in 1021 e. 



common for e and u or for e and u with Escor. 72 to 
be in agreement against all the others. Neverthe- 
less, e and u are clearly independent of each other, 
for they differ from each other in more than sixty 
places, in forty of which u is alone in error but in at 
least one of which it agrees with f, m, r in correctly 
preserving a word that is not in e or in the others 
(1017 f [/cat rod ij8']), while in several places e pre- 
serves words that are lacking in u, most notably a 
passage of 21 words that the latter omits (1019 f 
[ev Se rots TpnrhaoLois . . . ovrco ylyvercu Zeros']). 

While in agreement with e and u against E and B 
at least a dozen times and in five of these with 
words that are not in E or B at all, 5 f, m, and r are 
clearly independent of e and u, since in about a 
dozen passages all three of them agree in having 
words that are absent from both e and u c ; but f, 
m, and r, although they agree against all the others 
in more than sixty places and in more than a score 
of these alone preserve the correct text, are them- 
selves independent of one another, for besides other 
striking differences each of them preserves words 
that the other two do not have. d Of the three the 

a Of the two score cases and more see 1015 d (o>s ovk ev 
rrjv) t 1017 b (see the critical apparatus on fidya), 1023 e 
(Xcyciv)* 1027 b-c (#cal vTrcpexofievrjv . . . virepixovoav omitted by 
e u Escor 72^ 
' * See 1014 a, 1018 b (twice), 1025 b, and 1028 a. 

c Of these the most significant are 1027 b-c { K al vnepexo- 
fj.€vr)v . . . v7T€p€Xovaav), 1018 a (see the critical apparatus on 
Kal 7roiov(7(u)> 1020 a (#ccu rots TpiirAaalois)* and 1021 E (npos 
ra y Kal p.' Kal </)• In all these cases the Aldine also lacks the 
words preserved by f, m, r. 

d Of the many cases see e.g. 1020 d and 1028 d for words 
in f and m that are not in r ; 1025 f, 1019 d, and 1021 c for 



text of m is most nearly intact and the best by 

Escor. 72, a though it often agrees with f, m, and r 
against e and u and more often with e and u against 
f, m, and r and in both cases frequently agrees with 
E and B, was not copied from any of these mss. 
From E and B it differs more than eighty times and 
in at least seven of these exhibits in agreement with 
e and u or with f, m, and r or with all five of them 
words that are absent from both E and B. b So also, 
while f, m, and r have words that it lacks, c it pre- 
serves words that are missing from them, d as it does 
others that are missing from e or from u/ Although 
like f, m, and r more recent than the Aldine, like 
them (see page 154, note c supra) it too preserves 
words that are lacking in the Aldine/ from which it 

words in m and r that are not in f ; 1024 a, 1025 d, and 1019 e 
for words in f or r that are not in m. 

a The contents of this ms. (£-1-12) are of different dates, the 
Be Animae Procreatione in Timaeo (ff. 75 r -87 r ) being of the 
16th century according to P. A. Revilla, Catdlogo de los 
Cddices Griegos de la Biblioteca de El Escorial I (Madrid, 
1936), p. 253 and p. 255 (No. 13). 

6 See 1012 b, 1014 a, 1015 d, 1024 e, 1025 b, 1018 b, 1028 a. 

c There are more than a dozen such cases to testify that 
f, m, and r do not derive from Escor. 72 ; see especially 
1020 a (kcu rots TpnrXaoLois) and 102 1 e {irpos ra y /cat pf 
Kal </)• 

d There are half a dozen cases of this, the most striking 
being 1022 b, where a whole clause is missing from f, m, r ; 
in 1025 f it is f alone that omits eleven words, and in 1025 c 
f and r that omit ten. 

• See 1027 n (wcpl 8c rrjs rd^ccos) and 1029 a (Wvtc tct/hi- 
x6ffou>v)> and for u alone 1019 f (^V 8c rols TpnrXaolois • • •)• 

1 See the critical apparatus on 1016 e (*at t^v), 1017 b 
(rcKiiripiov ion fteya), and 1024 A (kq.1 rrjs x € ^P 0V0 ^)' 



differs in more than thirty passages a and with which 
it is alone in agreement against all the other mss. 
only twice. 6 When it agrees with the Aldine against 
other mss., it is usually at the same time in agree- 
ment with e and u or at least with e. 

The Aldine itself cannot have been taken from E 
or B, with both of which it disagrees more than a 
hundred times and with neither of which it ever 
agrees against all the other mss-. c in at least a dozen 
places it exhibits words that are in other mss. but 
are missing from E and B d ; and at 1027 b-c it agrees 
exactly with e, u, and Escor. 72 in a mutilated text 
entirely different from the text of E and B, although 
other passages prove that it could not have been 
taken from e or u either. e Nor could it have been 

a See e.g. the critical apparatus on 1016 it (avveptjas)* 
1024 E (k plots), 1018 a ( T a fi€v yap), 1022 a (dvaX6ya>s rjor}), 
1030 c (eV/xe'Aeiav). 

b See the critical apparatus on 1017 a (tclvtcl of) bel) and 
1021 e (Kara rov fiapmarov). In 1020 d (vtts') Escor. 72 has 
8 superscript over s , a miscorrection that might have come 
from the Aldine {vtto') or from the source off, m, r (vo&'). 
There are more than half a dozen cases in which Escor. 72 
has been corrected to a reading in which the Aldine and 
f, m, r agree. 

c The nearest it comes to this is at 1029 d where for the 
first word in chapter 33 (oKonetre) it agrees with E, B, and 
r against all the others. 

d See e.g. the critical apparatus on 1014 a (xrept rovrtov), 
1015 D (cos ovk €0 rr}v), 1024 e (rrXavrfTcov), 1025 b (dbtKTov 
ovaav dAAd), 1018 b (inoyboos aV), 1028 a (/xovovoux't). 

e In half a dozen passages it agrees with u alone against 
all the other mss. (see especialty 1024 e on «-pt<jt?: klv^gls -u, 
Aldine) ; and yet in 1019 f it preserves twenty-one words 
that are not in u ( € V hk rots TpnrXaotois . . .)', while in at least 
two places it agrees with f, m, r in words that are not in e or 11 
(see 1014 b on 77/00 rrjs rov and 1029 c on rfj v-nary rovov)- 
In more than thirty other passages it disagrees withe and u, 



taken from C.C.C. 99> which in many passages lacks 
words that it preserves. a 

for which e.g. see the critical apparatus on 1023 E (Xeyiiv), 

1025 F (xa)pis tovtwv), 1018 A (ra fxkv yap), 1018 B (Sta tovto 
Kai), 1022 a (avaXoycos rjorj), and 1028 b (tov f Ep/xoG). 

° To mention none of the other cases, words that the Aldine 
preserves and r omits in the following passages are also 
wanting in C.C.C. 99 : 1017 a, 1017 b, 1020 d, 1022 b, 1025 c, 

1026 b, 1028 d. 




'0 7rarrjp AvrofiovXa) /cat UXovrdpxco ev 

B 1. 'E7T€t rd 7ToXXaKis elprjfjLeva /cat yeypafifieva 

<j7TOpd8rjv ev irepois erepa rrjv HXdrcovos efyyov- 

fitvois $6£av fjv £ix €V virep *fwxy £ > ^ VTrevoovpcev 

rjfJLtls, oUade Setv els €v cruvaxd'fjvai /cat rvx^lv 

tota? dvaypa<f>fjs rov Xoyov rovrov, ovt dXXws ev- 

/x€ra^€t/otaTov ovtol /cat Sid to rots' rrXeiarois rtov 

dno HXaTwvos vnevavTiovadac Seofxevov napapiv- 

dias, 7Tpo€K6rj(jop,at, rrjv Xe£iv aW £v Tt/xata) yeypa- 

7ttcu. " rfjs dfJLepovs 2 /cat del Kara 3 ravrd ixovarjs 

ovaias /cat rrjs av 7T€pl rd ooj/xara yiyvopevqs 

1 eV ra> Tifialw -E, B, e, u, Escor. 72. 

2 afiepiarov -Timaeus 35 a 1. 

3 /cat act Kal Kara -e, u, Escor. 72. 

a Concerning these two sons of Plutarch's cf. K. Ziegler, 
R.-E. xxi/1 (1951), col. 649, 9-63. 

6 Timaeus 35 a 1-b 4. The passage is here translated in 
such a way as to make it compatible with the construction 
of it implied by Plutarch's subsequent interpretation. The 
correct construction and interpretation of Plato's text are 
given by G. M. A. Grube (Class. Phil., xxvii [1932], pp. 80- 
82) and by F. M. Cornford (Plato's Cosmology, pp. 59-61), 
who might have cited in their own support not only Pro- 
cms, as they do (cf. especially In Platonis Timaeum ii, pp. 



To Autobulus and Plutarch a from their Father 
with his Wishes for their Welfare 

1. Since you think that there ought to be a unified 
collection of the various statements that I have 
frequently made and have set down sporadically in 
various writings explaining what I supposed to be 
the opinion held by Plato concerning the soul and 
that a separate treatise ought to be devoted to this 
account, as it is both difficult to deal with otherwise 
and in need of vindication because of its opposition 
to most of the Platonists, I shall make my preface 
the passage as it is written in the Timaeus. h " Of 
the indivisible c and ever invariable being and of the 

155, 20-156, 24 and p. 162, 6-14 [Diehl]), but also the clear 
and concise paraphrases of the passage by Hermias (In 
Platonis Phaedrum, p. 123, 4-12 [Couvreur]) and by Aristi- 
des Quintilianus (Be Musica iii, 24 = p. 126, 1-7 [Winnington- 
Ingram]). Proclus (ibid., pp. 162, 25-163, 3) implies that 
Porphyry understood the passage in the same way. 

c Plato wrote afzeplarov here (Timaeus 35 a 1), and Plu- 
tarch usually employs that word in referring to this passage 
(1012 e, 1014 d, 1022 e and f, 1025 b and e infra \ cf. Plat. 
Quaest. 1001 d supra) ; but a few lines below (Timaeus 35 
a 5) Plato himself used d^icpovs in the same sense (cf. The- 
aetetus 205 c 2 and d 1-2 with e 2), and in 1022 e infra 
Plutarch remarks to . . . ixovotihks ci/licocj etp-qrai kclI dfiepiarov. 



(1012) ,> > I ~ > ! 

p (JL€plOT7]S TpLTOV 6$ CLfJLCpOlV €V fJL€(J(A) GVV€K€paOCLTO 

ovoias ethos, T7J9 re ravrov (f>voea)s av irepi /cat rfjs 
rod irepov 2 /cat Kara ravra* ovveor-qaev ev fxeaco 
rod r afiepods avrrjv* /cat rod Kara ra aoj/xara 
p,epiorov. /cat T/ota Aa/3a>v aura 6VTa avveKepd- 
aaro 5 ets jittav rravra Iheav, rr)v darepov <f>vcriv hvo- 
yiLKrov ovoav els ravro* ovvappiorraiv j8t'a pnyvvs 
he fierd rfjs ovoias* /cat €/c rpccov Troirjodfievos ev 
TrdXiv oXov rodro fioipas els aV rrpoofJKe Sieve ifxev 
eKaorrjv he rovra>v 8 €/c re ravrov /cat darepov /cat 
T779 ovoias fJiepuyfievrjv rjpxero he hiaipeiv cSSe." 
D ravra rrpcorov ooas 7rapeoyy)Ke rots e^rjyovpLevois 

1 ovv€K€Kpdoaro -u. 

2 tou irepov -E, B (c/. 1012 e infra : tov 8^ Tairrou >cat row 
erepov), Timaeus 35 a 4-5 (in A, P, W, Y but darepov 
in F) ; rod Oarepov -e, u ; Oarepov -f, m, r, Escor. 72. 

3 raura -r, Timaeus 35 a 5 (in F but ravra in A, P, W, Y). 

4 avrtov -m, r, Timaeus 35 a 6. 

5 ovveKeKpdoaro -U. 

6 rauTov -Timaeus 35 a 8. 

7 fioipas ooas -Timaeus 35 b 2. 

8 Omitted in Timaeus 35 b 3 by A, P, W, Y. 

a Plato wrote Kara ravra . . . avrtov ; but instead of the 
former Plutarch probably read Kara ravra, and instead of 
the latter he certainly read avrrjv and construed rod r 
apepovs . . . Kal rov . . . jieptorov as a genitive of material 
with ovveorrjoev avrrjv instead of as governed by ev fieoto* 
for in 1025 b and 1025 e— 1026 a infra he says that between 
sameness and difference there was placed as a receptacle 
for them the mixture of the indivisible and the divisible* 
The change of avrcov to avrrjv may have been occasioned 
by the same desire for an expressed object of oweorrjoev 
that led Hackforth (Class. Rev., N.S. vii [1957 J, p. 197), 
while adopting Cornford's construction of the passage, to 



divisible on the other hand that comes to pass in the 
case of bodies he blended together out of both a 
third kind of being in the middle, and in regard to 
the nature of sameness again and that of difference 
he also in this way compounded it a in the middle of 
the indivisible and what is divisible among bodies. 
And he took them, three as they were, and blended 
them all together into a single entity, 6 forcibly fit- 
ting into sameness the nature of difference, which 
is refractory to mixture, and mixing them together 
with being. And, when out of three he had made 
one, he again distributed the whole of this into 
fractions d that were appropriate and each of these a 
blend of sameness and difference and being ; and he 
began the division in the following way." To recount 
at present all the dissensions that these words have 

propose Kara ravra <ravr6> ; but Kara ravra ovvtorrjatv 
here needs a separately expressed object no more than does 
fiiyvvs five lines below (Timaeus 35 b 1) or rxepl re ipvxys 
<j>vo€U)S huod)v Kara ravra in Phaedrus 277 B 8. 

6 For Plato's use of Ibea in this sense cf. TJieaetetus 184 
u 3, 203 e 4, 204 a 1-2, 205 c 1-2, 205 d 5 ; Parmenides 
157 d 7-e 2 ; Politicus 308 c 6-7 (and with this cf. Timaeus 
28 a 8). 

c As Proclus saw (In Platonis Timaeum ii, p. 159, 5-14 
[Diehl]), Plato meant simply " and mixing them (i.e. both 
of them) with being " (cf. Timaeus 37 a 2-4 ; and for thi.s 
use of ficrd cf. 83 b 5-6, 85 a 5, and Laws 961 d 9-10) ; but 
from 1025 b infra it appears that Plutarch took it to mean 
11 and mixing them (i.e. the two of them) together with the 
help of being," as do Taylor (Commentary on Plato's 
Timaeus, p. 109) and Thevenaz (V Ame du Monde, pp. 13, 
X,!), 42). 

d The «s as, which here replaces Plato's oaas (cf TMirg 
737 r. 3-4 and 756 B 8-c 1), is in accordance with Plutarch's 
own usage (cf. l)e Comm. Not. 1081 c-u infra, De Defictu 
Orac. 422 e, Quaest. Conviv. 719 e). 



(1012) 8ia<f>opd$ dVAerov epyov earl SteXdetv iv ra> Trap- 
ovti, rrpos Se vfids ivreTVxrjKoras 1 6[iov (rt) a reus 
irAelaTais /cat irepirrov. eVet Se ra>v SoKifMWTdrwv 
dvSpwv tovs [i€V 'EevoKpdrrjs Trpoarjydyero, rrjs 
ifiuxfis ^ v ovalav dpiOpcov avrov v^ iavrov kwov- 
fxevov d7TO<f>rjvd/jL€vos, s oi Se Kpdvropi rw 2)oAet 4 
TTpoaedevro, fjuyvvvn rrjv ifrox^v e/c re rrjs vor)Trjs 
/cat rrjs 7T€pl rd alaOrjrd Sotjaarijs <f>va€a>s, ot/xat rt 
ttjv tovtojv dvaKa\v<f>6 evrwv acufyqveiav <x><j7T€p eV- 
86aip,ov rjfuv* nape^eiv. 

2. v Eart Se fSpayvs virkp dficfroiv d 6 Aoyos. oi 

/x,ev yap ovStv fj yiveow dpidfiov &rjAovadai vofii- 

E £ouat rfj fjd£ei rrjs dpLepiarov /cat jjLepKjTijs ovoias- 

dfjiepiarov fX€V yap efvat to eV /xeotaroV Se to ttAtj- 

1 ivrvxovras -f» m, r. 

2 <rt> -added by Hartman (De Plutarcho, p. 589, n. 1) ; 
e'/xov rats -r ; 6fxov reus -all other mss. 

3 a7ro</>T]vafi€vovs -Escor. 72. 

4 f , m ; oro>Aet -r ; croAiet -E, B, e, u, Escor. 72. 

5 E, B, e ; v/uv -u, f, m, r, Escor. 72. 

6 o -omitted by e, u, Escor. 72. 

° Sextus according to the mss. of Adv. Math, i, 301 asserts 
that Trdvrcs oi UXdrajvos e^-qy^rai were silent about the 
passage ; but cf. W. Theilers suggestion (Gnomon* xxviii 
[1956], p. 286). 

6 Xenocrates, frag. 68 (Heinze [p. 187, 6-8]); cf. Plat. 
Quaest. 1007 c supra with note c there and Xenocrates, 
frags. 60-61 with Cherniss, Aristotle's Criticism of Plato 
. . ., p. 396, n. 321. 

c Crantor, frag. 3 (Kayser) = frag. 3 (Mullach, Frag. 
Philos. Graec. iii, p. 140). With the formulation, T r\s vorjTrjs 
Kal rrjs • • • Sogaorrjs <f>vo€<x)s, cf. Plutarch, Adv. Colotem 
1114 c ; Albinus, Epitome ix, 4 (p. 55 9 1-3 [Louis] = p. 164, 
1-3 [Hermann]) and Apuleius, JJe Platone i, 9 (p. 92, 10-15 
[Thomas]) referring to Timaeus 51 d-e ; Sextus, Adv. 
Math, vii, 141 referring to Timaeus 27 d 6 — 28 a 4 ; and 



occasioned their interpreters a is in the first place an 
immense task and to do so to you superfluous as 
well, as you have read pretty nearly the most of 
them. Since, however, of the men most highly 
esteemed some were won over by Xenocrates, who 
declared the soul's essence to be number itself being 
moved by itself, 5 and others adhered to Crantor of 
Soli, who makes the soul a mixture of the intelligible 
nature and of the opinable nature of perceptible 
things, 6 I think that the clarification of these two 
when exposed will afford us something like a key- 
note. d 

2. The statement concerning both is concise.* 
The former believe t that nothing but the generation 
of number is signified by the mixture of the indi- 
visible and divisible being, the one being indivisible 

see Plato, Republic 534 a 6-7. Crantor, the pupil of Xeno- 
crates (Diogenes Laertius, iv, 24), is called by Proclus (In 
Platonis Timaeum i, p. 76, 1-2 [Diehl]) 6 tt(kotos rou IlAa- 
roivos igrjyrjrqs. 

d Cf De Defectu Orac. 420 f and 421 f, Quaest. Conviv. 
704 e ; Athenaeus, xiii, 556 a. 

• The expression suggests that what follows was taken 
not directly from Xenocrates and Crantor but from a report 
of their interpretations. 

f Xenocrates, frag. 68 (Heinze [p. 187, 11-23]). Cf 
Cherniss, The Riddle, pp. 45-46 and p. 73 and Aristotle's 
Criticism of Plato . . ., pp. 396-402 ; and Merlan, Platonism 
to Neoplatonism, pp. 34-35, who on pp. 45-48 argues that 
Xenocrates' interpretation of Timaeus 35 a 1-b 4 is not " so 
thoroughly mistaken M although on p. 13 he had himself 
accepted as correct the interpretation given by Cornford 
(see note b on 1012 b supra), whereas it is by neglect of the 
latter and consequent misconstruction of Timaeus 35 a 1-b 4 
that Xenocrates 1 interpretation is vindicated by H. J. 
Kramer (Geistmetaphysik, p. 328 ; cf his Arete, p. 314, 
lines 1-3). 



(1012) 60$ €K 8e tovtojv yiyveodai rov apiOfiov tov evos 
opi^ovros to 7r\fj9os Kal rfj direipia rrtpas ivrtOev- 
tos, 1 rjv Kdl SvdSa KaXovaiv doptorov (koll Xapdrag 6 
Hvdayopov 8t8doKa\os ravrrjv (lev €/caAa rod dpi- 
djxov fXTjrepa to 8e 4V 7TCLT€pa- 816 Kal jSeAriova? 
elvai Ttov dptdfjLtov 0001 rfj jjLOvd8t rrpooeotKaoi) y 
tovtov Se pJymo ifjvx'rjv rov dpcdfiov 2 elvai' to yap 
KivrjTLKOv Kal to kwtjtov evSctv avTco. rov Se rau- 

1 MSS. (cf 1014 D infra [dneipLav . . . iv avrij Wpa? ovoev 
. . . €xovaav] and 1026 a infra with Quaest. Conviv. 719 e 
[a7T€ip(p 7T€paros iyyevofievov] ; Iambliehus, Theolog. Arith., 
p. 9, 1* [de Falco]) ; imndivros -Bernardakis. 

2 tov dptdfjiov -deleted as a gloss by Papabasileios (Athena, 
x [1898], p. 226). 

a Cf. Be Befectu Orac. 429 a (tot€ yap dpidpuos yiyvcrat 
tcov 7r\r]da)V zkclotov vtto rov ivos opi^ofievov). 

b Cf. Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum ii, p. 153, 19-21 and 
23-25 (Diehl) = Numenius, Test. 31 (p. 97 [Leemans]) ; The- 
mistius, Be Anima, p. 12, 13-27 (cf. Gnomon, xxxi [1959], 
pp. 42-43) ; and for number as the product of the one and 
the indefinite dyad see the references in note a on Plat. 
Quaest. 1002 a supra (where the terms used are novas and 
rj dneLpos Bvds). 

c Plutarch mentions '* Zaratas " only here and must have 
been unaware that this is just another form of " Zoroaster M 
(cf. Bidez-Cumont, Les Mages Hellenises i, pp. 36-38), to 
whom he refers at 1026 b infra and for whom he accepted 
the date of 5,000 years before the Trojan War (Be Jside 
369 d-e ; cf. Hermodorus in Diogenes Laertius, i, 2 and 
Hermippus in Pliny, N.lf. xxx, 4). With the first part of 
Plutarch's parenthesis here cf Hippolytus in Refutatio vi, 
23, 2 (p. 149, 29-30 [Wendland| : Kal Zapdras o'llvOayopov 
biodaKaAos CKaXet to akv ev traripa to ok bvo /Lt^repa), who 
for this cites no authority but who in Refutatio i, 2, 12 
(p. 7, 2-5 [Wendland]) as his source for a highly con- 
taminated account of the doctrine expounded to Pythagoras 
by Zaratas cites Aristoxenus (frag. 13 [Wehrli] ; cf. F. 
Jacoby, F. Gr. Hist. Ill a, pp. 295, 20-298, 14 [ad 273 f 94] 



and multiplicity divisible and number being the 
product of these when the one bounds multiplicity a 
and inserts a limit in infinitude, which they call 
indefinite dyad too b (this Zaratas too, the teacher of 
Pythagoras, called mother of number ; and the one 
he called father, which is also why he held those 
numbers to be better that resemble the monad d ) ; 
but they believe that this number is not yet soul, 
for it lacks motivity and mobility/ but that after the 

and W. Spoerri, Rev. Etudes Anciennes, lvii [1955], pp. 267- 
290 [especially pp. 272-273]) and an otherwise unknown 
Diodorus of Eretria. The explanation of this latter name 
attempted by J. Bidez (Eos [Bruxelles, 1945], pp. 16-17) is 
implausible even on chronological grounds ; and it is more 
probable that behind this " Diodorus " lurks the name of 
Eudorus (cf. J. Roeper, Philologus, vii [1852], pp. 532-535), 
who is cited by Plutarch at 1013 b, 1019 e, and 1020 c 
infra and who is therefore likely to have been his source 
not only for the parenthetical reference to Zaratas here but 
also for the summary in which it stands (see note e on 1012 d 
supra and Helmer, Be An. Proc, p. 13, n. 18). 

d i.e. the odd numbers (cf. Nicomachus, Arithmetica 
Introductio n, xx, 2 [p. 118, 4-6, Hoche] ; Syrianus, Metaph., 
p. 181, 23-25), which are called male (cf. Plutarch, Quaest. 
Romanae 264 a and 288 c-d, Be E 388 a-b) and " better " 
(cf. Quaest. Romanae 264 a init. ; Demetrius in Proclus, 
In Platonis Rem Publicam ii, p. 23, 13-22 [Kroll] ; Aristides 
Quintilianus, Be Musica iii, 24 [p. 126, 24-27, Winnington- 
Ingram]). Plutarch himself speaks of their derivation from 
the monad as from " the better principle " (Be Befectu Orac. 
429 b), and Xenocrates seems to have identified with odd- 
ness the monad which as male he gave the rank of father 
(Xenocrates, frag. 15 [Heinze] and Aristotle, Metaphysics 
1084 a 32-37 with 1083 b 28-30; cf. A.J.P., lxviii [1947], 
pp. 245-246 in note 86). 

• Cf. infra rov KivelaOai Kal kivclv ( m of being in motion 
and setting in motion ") and Aristotle's objection, Be Anima 
409 a 3 (ct [fj] yap ion klvtitlkt] /cat Kivqrri, hia(j>€p€LV Set) with 
Be Generate one 326 b 3-5. 



(1012) rod /cat rod irepov avfifjuyevrtov, a>v to \iiv ion 

Kivrjoecos 0>pxh K0Ll p<£Ta>fioAi}s to Se [xovrjs, fayrpt 1 

yeyovivai, fxrjSev tjttov tov lordvat, /cat loraodai 

F Svvapnv ^ rov KLvelodat /cat Kivelv ovoav. ol Se 

7T€pl TOV KpOLVTOpa fldXiOTa T7JS foxy* ?8tOV V7TO- 

XapifiavovTes epyov etvat to 2 Kpiveiv Ta T€ vorjTa /cat 
tcl alodrjTa t&s t€ tovtcdv iv olvtoIs /cat 7rpos aA- 
A^Aa ycyvofjievas 8ta^o/>a9 /cat o/xotoT^ra? €/c irav- 
tu)v (f>aoiv, Iva iravra ycyvcooKr), ovyK€Kpdo6at Trjv 
1013 tfn*)(rjv tolvtcl S' etvai recraapa, ttjv votjttjv <f>voiv 

1 novyv (iiovrjv -f) ipvxfjs -f» m, r, Escor. 72corr. (y and s 
superscript over s and v), Aldine. 

2 to -f, m, r ; rov -E, B, e, u, Escor. 72, Aldine. 

a For difference and sameness as the principles of motion 
and rest respectively cf. Aristotle, Physics 201 b 19-21 
(= Metaphysics 1066 a 11) and Metaphysics 1084 a 34-35 
with Cherniss, Aristotle's Criticism of Plato . . ., note 305 
on p. 385 and pp. 11-12, p. 122, p. 443. Aristotle argues 
that a self-mover must have an internal principle of motion 
(cf. Cherniss, op. cit., pp. 389-390) and that soul must be 
araTiK-q as well as kiv^tiktj {Topics 127 b 15-16 ; cf. De Anima 
406 b 22-24 with 409 b 7-11) ; and Xenocrates mistakenly 
tried to make soul as self-motion satisfy both these require- 
ments (cf. Cherniss, op. cit. 9 note 366 [especially pp. 432- 
433]). In " Timaeus Locrus " 95 e — 96 a the sameness and 
difference mixed with the blend of indivisible form and 
divisible being are called 8vo Swdfjaas dpxas kivcloicov without 
further specification. 

b Crantor, frag. 4 (Kayser) = frag. 4 (Mullach, Frag. 
Philos. Graec. iii, p. 140), with the whole of which cf. 
Albinus, Epitome xiv, 1-2 (p. 79, 3-14 [Louis] = p. 169, 16-26 
[Hermann]). Unlike Xenocrates Crantor did not read into 
the psychogony any principle of motion or any identification 
of soul with number (Taylor, Commentary on Plato's 
Timaeus, p. 113) ; and P. Merlan in saying that " Crantor 
. . . interpreted the * psychogony * of the Timaeus as being 
simply ' arithmogony ' . . ." (Armstrong, Later Greek . . . 



commingling of sameness and difference, the latter of 
which is the principle of motion and change while 
the former is that of rest, then the product is soul, 
soul being a faculty of bringing to a stop and being 
at rest no less than of being in motion and setting in 
motion. Crantor and his followers, on the other 
hand, 6 supposing that the soul's peculiar function is 
above all to form judgments of the intelligible and 
the perceptible objects c and the differences and 
similarities occurring among these objects both 
within their own kind and in relation of either kind 
to the other , d say that the soul, in order that it may 
know all, has been blended together out of all e and 

Philosophy \ pp. 17-18) erroneously ascribes to him the very 
interpretation that he in fact rejected. 

c Cf. Albinus, loc. cit. y p. 79, 3 (Louis) = p. 169, 16 (Her- 
mann) and Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum i, p. 254, 29-31 
with ii, p. 135, 24-25 (Diehl). This use of Kplveiv is frequent 
in Aristotle {e.g. Be Anima 427 a 17-21, 428 a 3-5, cf. 432 
a 15-16 and 404 b 25-27) ; for Plato cf. Republic 523 b 1-2 
(<1)S Ikolv&s {mo rijs alvd-jocias Kpivofieva). 

d That is the difference and similarity (1) of intelligibles 
to one another or of perceptibles to one another and (2) of 
intelligible and perceptible to each other. Cf Timaeus 
37 a 5-b 3 and Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum ii, pp. 304, 
22-305, 4 (Diehl). 

* Because " like is known by like " (cf Albinus, loc. cit.), 
the assumption underlying the psychogony according to 
Aristotle (De Anima 404 b 16-18) and later interpreters 
generally (cf. Sextus, Adv. Math, i, 303 [cf. vii, 92-93 and 
116-120]; Chalcidius, Platonis Timaeus, pp. 119, 14-120, 
11 [Wrobel] = p. 100, 8-22 [Waszink] ; Proclus, In Platonis 
Timaeum ii, p. 135, 23-30 and p. 298, 2-31 [Diehl]) ; but 
see Cherniss, Aristotle's Criticism of Plato . . ., pp. 408-411 
(with note 339 sub finem on Crantor) and G. M. Stratton, 
Theophrastus and the Greek Physiological Psychology before 
Aristotle (London/New York, 1917), pp. 156-157 on De 
Sensibus 1 (Box. Graeci, p. 499, 3). 



(1013) del Kara ravrd Kal ojoavrajs exovaav Kal rrjv irepl 
ra acbfiara TTadrjrtKTjv 1 Kal iierafiXrjrrjv en 8e rrjv 
ravrov Kal rov irepov Sia to ko\k€lvojv eKarepav 

p,€T€X€LV €T€p6r7}TOS KCtl TaUTOT^TOS' . 

3. 'OfiaXcos oe iravres ovroi X/oova> ^ v otovrai 
rrjv l l J ^XV p PV yeyovevai /xTyS' etvai yevrjTrjv 2 TrXeL- 
ovas he Swdfieis ex €iv > € ^ & dvaXvovra decopias* 
eveKa ttjv ova lav avrrjs Xoyco rov YlXdrcjova ytyvo- 
\ievr\v viroridead at Kal avyKepavwfjievrjv* rd S' aura 

1 mss. (cf. 1023 b infra [tu>v vor)Tu>v to di'Siov Kal twv at- 
crdTjTcov to 7Ta6r}TiKov] and Dox. Graeci % p. 281 a 11 and b 9) ; 
7ra8r]TTjv -Bernardakis (cf. De E 392 b from Eusebius, Praep. 
Evang. xi, 11, 4 [rcov TradrjTcov Kal fieTajiXrjTwv]). 

2 yewrjTTjv -f, m, Aldine. 3 Oeojplav -r 1 . 

a Plato emphatically stated that the ingredients of the soul 
are three (Timaeus 35 a 6-7 and 37 a 2-4). 

b Called T7js Trepl ra alad^ra Bo^aarrjs <j>vo€a>s in 1012 d 
supra (see note c there) and in 1013 r infra simply rijs 
alvOrjTrjs ovatas. With the expression used here (rrcpl ra 
aatfiara may have been taken directly from Timaeus 35 a 
2-3, but cf. rep rrepl ra aa)fiaTa 7T\avY)Tip Kal p,€Ta^Xr)Tcp in 
Quaest. Conviv. 718 d) cf. tu>v alaO-qTwv to 7radtjTiKov in J023 
B-c infra 9 (<f>va€OJs) ovot)s iv TraOzoi TravTOoaTroZs Kal p.€TafioXais 

OLTOLKTOLS 1H 1015 E infra, T7;i> 0€ GOJUaTLKTjV Kal 7Tadr)TlKT}V 

(<f>voiv) in De Defectu Orac. 428 b, and also Adv. Colotem 
1115 E (ttjs vXr)$ . . . irddrj 7roXXa Kal /werajSoAds . . . Se^o/LieV^s) 
and 1 1 16 D (raurat? als iv toj wdcrxeiv Kal /xera/^dAAcij/ to €tvcu). 

c Cf. Albinus, loc. cit. 9 p.* 79, 10-11 (Louis) -p. 169, 22-24 
(Hermann) : . . . €7Ti tcov vor)Ta>v rauTOT^Ta re Kal erepo- 
Ttrra Kal iirl twv pcpLOTCJV. . . . 

d Xenocrates, frag. 68 (Heinze [p. 187, 23-27]) and 
Crantor, frag. 4 (Kayser [p. 19]) = frag. 4 (Mullach, Frag. 
Philos. Oraec. iii, p. 140). 

e Cf. 1017 b infra (ov Oewplas eW/ca) and ov tov ueoopijoai 
€v€K*v (Aristotle, Metaphysics 1091 a 28-29 ; contrast 
Speusippus, frag. 46, 17-20 [Lang]), SioaoKaXtas xdpcv &s 
li&XXov yvojpi&vTOJv (Aristotle, Be Caelo 280 a 1, with Taurus 
in Philoponus, De Aeternitate Mundi, p. 187, 1 and p. 224, 



that these are four, a the intelligible nature, which is 
ever invariable and identical, and the passive and 
mutable nature of bodies b and furthermore that of 
sameness and of difference because each of the 
former two also partakes of diversity and identity. 

3. All these interpreters are alike in thinking d 
that the soul did not come to be in time and is not 
subject to generation but that it has a multiplicity of 
faculties and that Plato in analysing its essence into 
these for the sake of examination e represents it 
verbally as corning to be^ and being blended to- 

1 [Rabe] ; Alexander, ibid., p. 217, 23-24 ; Simplicius, 
De Caelo, p. 304, 4-6 ; [Alexander], Metaph., p. 819, 38 
and p. 820, 5), oafavelas x^P lv (Theophrastus, Phys, Opin., 
frag. 11 [Dox. Oraeci, pp. 485, 18-486, 2], with Taurus in 
Philoponus, De Aeternitate Mundl, p. 187, 5 [Rabe] and 
Alexander, ibid., p. 216, 13), em rod oa<f>ovs XP € ^ a (Atticus 
in FAisebius, Praep. Evang. xv, 6, 4 = ii, p. 360, 7 [Mras]), 
and various combinations of these expressions in Plotinus 
{Enn. iv, iii, 9, lines 14-15), Proclus (In Platonis Timaeum 
i, p. 290, 9-10 [Diehl]), and Philoponus (De Aeternitate 
Mundi, p. 186, 14-16 and p. 189, 10-13 [Rabe]). With 
els as dvaXvovra . . . rrjv ovaiav avrfjs cf. especially Proclus, 
In Platonis Timaeum ii, pp. 123, 27-124, 10 (Diehl) and 
Chalcidius, Platonis Timaeus, p. 97, 5-7 (Wrobel) = pp. 81, 
26-82, 1 (Waszink), on which cf. J. H. Waszink, Studien 
zum T'tmaioskommentar des Calcidlus i (Leiden, 1964), p. 7, 
n. 3. For similar language used of the cosmogony cf. 
Taurus, Porphyry, and Alexander in Philoponus, De 
Aeternitate Mundi, p. 146, 13-20, pp. 148, 9-23 with 153, 
23-154, 5, and pp. 217, 25-218, 10 (Rabe) ; Plotinus, Enn. 
[v, iii, 9, lines 15-20 ; and Simplicius, De Caelo, p. 304, 7-13. 
f Cf. " Timaeus Locrus" 94 c (cap. ii init. [7 ] ed. W. Marg) : 
TTplv (Lv ojpavov \6yip ytveoBai . . . with Proclus, In Platonis 
Timaeum ii, p. 101, 1-14 (Diehl) ; cf. also Plotinus, Enn. 
vi, vii, 35, lines 28-29 (6 8e Xoyos Si&dcrKcov yivo\L€va. noiel) 
with Enn. iv, iii, 9, lines 13-15 and viii, 4, lines 40-42 and 
in general Enn. in, v, 9, lines 24-29 (. . . koX ol \6yoi Kal 
yeveacis rcov aycvvrjTcov noLOvm . . .). 



(1013) /ecu 7repl rod Koofiov 8iavoovpi€vov iniaraadai /xev 

al8iov ovra kcu ayivqrov 1 to 8k q> Tpoirco ovvre- 

B raKTCU Kal 8ioik€itcli KaTa/iadelv ov pq8iov optovra 

Tot? /xTjre yevtoiv avrov firjre* rtov yevrjTiKOJv* ovv- 

o8ov i£ apxrjs 7Tpov7To0€fJLevois* ravrr)v rrjv 686v 

rpaTTeoQai. tolovtcdv 8e tcov kolOoAov AeyOjJLZVCJV, 

6 fiev JLvStopos ovSerepovg apioipeiv oterat rod el- 

kotos 5 ' ifiol 8e 8okovol rrjs TIAoltojvos dfi^orepoL 

1 ayevvrjrov -f, m, r, Aldine. 

2 nrjTe -f, m, r ; ^8c -E, B, e, u, Escor. 72, Aldine. 

3 yewrjTiKojv -f, m, r, Aldine. 

4 7rpownod€H€vr)v -r. 5 cIkotcos -u. 

a Xenocrates, frag. 54 (Heinze [p. 180, 21-26]) and 
Crantor, frag. 4 (Kayser [p. 19])=frag, 4 (Mullach, Frag. 
Philos. Graec. iii, p. 140) ; cf. in Xenocrates, frag. 54 
(Heinze) and Speusippus, frag. 54 a-b (Lang) Aristotle, 
Be Caelo 279 a 32—280 a 8 with Simplicius, Be Caelo, 
pp. 303, 33-304, 15 {cf. [Alexander], Metaph., p. 819, 37-38) 
and Scholia in Aristotelem 489 a 4-12 (Brandis). For 
Crantor's further explanation of y^vryrov as meaning not 
that the universe had a beginning but that it is dependent 
upon an extrinsic cause (frag. 2 [Kayser = Mullach, Frag. 
Philos. Graec. iii, p. 139] = Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum 
i, p. 277, 8-10 [Diehl]) cf. later Albinus, Epitome xiv, 3 
(p. 81, l-4[Louis] = p. 169, 26-30 [Hermann]) with Proclus, 
In Platonis Timaeum i, p. 219, 2-11 (Diehl); Taurus in 
Philoponus, Be Aeternitate Mundi, p. 147, 5-9 (Rabe) ; 
Plotinus, Enn. 11, ix, 3, lines 12-14 and Enn. in, ii, 1, lines 
22-26 and vii, 6, lines 52-54 ; Chalcidius, Platonis Timaeus, 
p. 89, 20-21 (Wrobel) = p. 74, 18-19 (Waszink) ; Simplicius, 
Phys., p. 1154, 9-11 ; and Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum i, 
p. 277, 10-17 (Diehl). 

b Cf. Taurus in Philoponus, Be Aeternitate Mundi, p. 187, 
15-16 (Rabe) with Alexander, ibid., p. 216, 13-15 ; Chal- 
cidius, Platonis Timaeus, pp. 91, 22-92, 3 (Wrobel) = p. 77, 
8-13 (Waszink) ; Simplicius, Be Caelo, p. 304, 6-10. 

c That is neither Xenocrates in his arithmological explica- 
tion of the psychogony nor Crantor in his epistemological 
explication of it, the two explications that Plutarch proceeds 



gether ; and they think a that with the same thing 
in mind concerning the universe too, while he knows 
it to be everlasting and ungenerated, yet seeing the 
way of its organization and management not to be 
easy for those to discern who have not presupposed 
its generation and a conjunction of the generative 
factors at the beginning, 6 this course is the one that 
he took. Such being on the whole what they say, 
Eudorus thinks that neither party is without all 
title to likelihood c ; but to me they both seem to 

to say are both wrong. The passage has been misinterpreted 
to mean that Eudorus reconciled the interpretation of the 
cosmogony by Xenocrates with the " literal " interpreta- 
tion of it by Crantor (H. D&rrie, Hermes, lxxix [1944], 
pp. 27-28 in his article on Eudorus, ibid., pp. 25-39), 
although Plutarch has just asserted that Crantor and 
Xenocrates and all their followers alike rejected the " literal M 
interpretation of both the psychogony and the cosmogony. 
He has also ascribed to all of them alike the same explana- 
tion of both, Bewpias €V€Ka* and has not mentioned Crantor* s 
additional interpretation of yewjTov (see note a on p. 170 
supra) ; and so C. Moreschini must be mistaken in suppos- 
ing him to refer to these as the two different explications to 
both of which Eudorus gave some title to likelihood (Annali 
della Scuola Norm. Sup. di Pisa [Lettere . . .], 2 Ser. xxxiii 
[1964], pp. 31-32). For Plutarch's use of Eudorus in this 
essay see note c on 1012 e supra ; and for Eudorus himself 
besides Dome's article cf. E. Martini, R.-E. vi (1909), cols. 
915, 41-916, 66 and G. Luck, Der Akademiker Antiochos 
(Bern/Stuttgart, 1953), pp. 27-28. Pap. Oxyrh. 1609 (xiii, 
pp. 94-96 ; cf. Diels-Kranz, Frag. Vorsok* i, p. 352, 1-6), 
in which the author refers to his own commentary on the 
Timaeus, has for this reason been ascribed to Eudorus, who 
has recently been proposed as the source of an ever-increasing 
number of later texts (cf. P. Boyanc£, Rev. Etudes Grecques, 
lxxiii [1959], pp. 378-380 and lxxvi [1963], pp. 85-89, 95, 
and 98 ; M. Giusta, I Dossografi di Etica i [Torino, 1964], 
pp. 151 if. ; W. Theiler, Parusia : Festgabe filr Johannes 
Hirschberger [Frankfurt am Main, 1965], pp. 204 ff.). 



(1013) oia/jLaprdveiv ooijrjs, €t kclvovi rep 1 iridavcp XPV" 
oreov ovk loia Soy/zara Trepaivovras aXX €K€ivlq ti 
fiovXopAvovs Xeyeiv opboXoyovpievov. rj fiev (yap) 2 
€K rrjs vorjTrjs* Kal rrjs aladrjryjs* ovoias Xeyofxevrj 
fjiitjis 5 ov Siaaa(f)€LTai rrfj ttot€ ipvxV^ /^aAAov rj rtov 
aAAa>v, o rt av tls €?*rg, a yiveois iartv. avros re 
C yap o Kovjios ovros 1 Kal ra)v fJL€ptov €Kaarov avv- 


/X€v uAr^i/ feat V7tok€ljjl€vov rj Se 8 jjLopcfyrjv Kal eloos 
rep yevofievco 9 7rapeax e ' KaL T ys ^ v vXrjs to fxer- 
oxfj f<al etKaata rov 10 vorjrov /xopcfrwdev evdvs cltttov 

1 to) -omitted by f, m, r, u 1 . 

2 <yap> added by Maurommates (" nam " -Turnebus ; 
44 car " -Amyot). 

8 Marcianus 187 corr - ; vo-qriKrjs -all other mss. 

4 Marcianus 187 ; aloOrjriKTJs -all other mss. 

5 fit£r)s -u. 6 €i7Toi -B, r. 

7 f, m, r, Escor. 72 corr - ; ovroos -all other mss. 

8 oi Be -B. 9 twv yevo/xevojv -r. 10 rov -omitted by u. 

° See 1014 a infra (marov^vos rat el/tort) ; and cf. De 
De/ectu Orac. 430 B (. . . npos rr)v €K€ivov bcdvoLav indyetv to 
€ikos • • •)» Quaest. Conviv. 728 f (. . . rov oe -mOavov Kal 
elKoros • • •) with 700 b, and contrast 719 f (. . . Sofas cos 
Waytvets Kal l&las . . . iirrjveaa /cat to cIkos Z$r\v txziv iVaycos). 

6 For rrjs alodrjrrjs ovoias an abbreviation of the formula- 
tions given in 1012 d and 1013 a supra (see note b there), 
cf. Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum ii, p. 154, 1-3 (Diehl) with 
Plotinus, Enn. iv, viii, 7 and Simplicius, De Anima, p. 28, 1-2. 

c Crantor may not have meant to make the fiepiorr) ovuia 
of Timaeus 35 a 2-3 a constituent part of the soul and 
probably did not identify it with corporeal being or matter 
(cf. Helmer, De An. Proc, p. 11 ; Thevenaz, U Ame du 
Monde, p. 61) ; but the present refutation assumes that he 
did, and the assumption may have been the easier for 
Plutarch to make because such an interpretation had 
already been adopted by others : it is attributed to Eratos- 
thenes by Proclus (In Platonis Timaeum ii, p. 152, 24-27 ; 



be utterly mistaken about Plato's opinion if as a 
standard plausibility is to be used, not in promotion 
of one's own doctrines but with the desire to say 
something that agrees with Plato. (For), as to what 
the one party calls the mixture of the intelligible 
and the perceptible being,** it is not made clear how 
in the world this is generation of soul rather than of 
anything else one may mention, for this universe 
itself and each of its parts consist of corporeal and 
intelligible being, of which the former provided 
matter or substrate and the latter shape or form for 
what has come to be, c and any matter that by 
participating in the intelligible and simulating it has 
got shape is straightway tangible (and) visible, d 

cf. F. Solmsen, T.A.P.A., lxxiii [1942], pp. 198 and 202) 
and is recorded by Chalcidius (Platonis Timaeus, p. 94, 4-10 
[\Vrobel] = p. 79, 9-14 [Waszink]), whose ultimate source for 
it is probably pre-Plutarchean (cf. " Timaeus Locrus " 
94 a-b). Later (1023 a infra), when against those who 
interpret the psychogony as a commingling of corporeal 
matter with indivisible being the present refutation of 
Crantor is repeated, it is preceded by the argument that 
Plato in that passage uses none of the expressions by which 
he was accustomed to designate corporeal matter. In fact, 
like Aristotle (Physics 209 b 11-13) Plutarch identified with 
vX-q the x^P a or receptacle of the Timaeus (1024 c infra-, 
cf. 1015 d infra and Quaest. Conviv. 636 d), confusing this 
further with " precosmic " corporeal chaos (cf. 1014 b-c and 
1016 d — 1017 a infra; Jones, Platonism of Plutarch, p. 81, 
n. 34; Thevenaz, UAme du Monde, pp. 110-113); and, 
though he apparently knew that Plato had not used vXrj in 
this sense (De Defectu Orac. 414 f; cf. Chalcidius, Platonis 
Timaeus, pp. 304, 4-7 and 336, 8-12 [Wrobel] = pp. 277, 18- 
278, 2 and 309, 3-6 [Waszink]), he even went so far as to 
insert the term into quasi-quotations of the Timaeus {cf. 
1016 d infra and De Defectu Orac. 430 c-d). 

d Cf Plat. Quaest. 1001 d-e supra ; and for amov <kol> 
oparov cf. Plato, Timaeus 28 b 7-8, 31 b 4, and 32 b 7-8. 



(1013) (/cal) 1 oparov loTiVy r\ tyvyy] 8k iraoav alodrjatv 

€K7T€(f)€Vy€V. dptOfJLOV }>€ fJL7]V 6 UXaTCUV Ov8€7TOT€ 

/cat Kivqaeojs 7T7]yrjv xal apxyv dptfyxai Se Kal 
Xoycp Kal dpjjiovla 8iaK€KO(TfjL7]K€ rrjv ovoiav 2 clvttjs 

V7TOK€llX€VriV Kal 8eXOjJL€V7]V TO KaXXlOTOV etSoS V7TO 

tovtcov eyyiyvopcevov. otfiai Se firj ravrov elvai rto 
-D KaT dptdfiov ovveardvai ttjv t/nr^v to rrjv ovolav 
avrfjs dpiOfiov virapytiv, eirel (/cat) 8 Ka6* dp/xo- 
viav ovvioT7]K€v appxyvia 8' ovk eanv, ws avros ev 
t& 7Tepl ^Fvxrjs diriSe^ev . €K<f>ai>a)S Se tovtols 

rjyVOTjTat TO 7T€pl TOV TaVTOV Kal TOV €T€pOV' X4- 

yovai yap ojs to /Ltev GTaoeios to 8e Kivrjoeojs crv/x- 
/JdAAeTat SvvapLLV els ttjv ttjs tfruxys yevzoiv, avTov 


to €T€pov Trpos 8e tovtois oTaaiv Kal Kivqaiv 0)S 

1 <kcu> -added by Xylander, implied by versions of 
Turnebus and Amyot. 

2 BiaKoafxrjKiv ovoiav -r. 3 <*al> -added by Hubert. 

a Plato, Laws 898 e 1-2 (see Plat. Quaest. 1002 c supra 
with note g there) and Timaeus 36 e 5-6 and 46 r> 6-7 ; cf. 
Albinus, Epitome xiii, 1 (p. 73, 4-7 [Louis] — p. 168, 6-9 

6 Phaedrus 245 c 9 (irqyr) koX dpxrj Kivrjaews)- The pre- 
ceding Kivqaiv avroKivrjTov del is not a quotation but a 
formulaic summary of Phaedrus 245 c 7-8 and 245 e 2-4 
influenced by the phraseology of Laws 894 b 9-c 1, 895 b 1-6, 
and 895 e 10 — 896 a 5 (cf. infra 1014 d [avroKLvrjrov 8* Kal 
KtvrjTiKJjv dpx^v\ y 1016 A [ra> 8* avTOKivrjra) Tnarovficvr} to 
dyevqrov avrrjs], 1017 A [SvvafjLiv avroKivrjTov Kal d€iKiv7\rov\, 
1023 c [rj p.ev ydp dci/aVqros]), and it does not indicate that 
Plutarch knew avroKivrjTov as a variant of dciKiVqrov in 
Phaedrus 245 c 5 (cf. Lustrum, iv [1959], p. 137, # 692 and 
# 693). Others also, who certainly read aeiKivrjTov there, say 
that in this passage of the Phaedrus soul is defined as T 6 
avroKivrjTov (e.g. Hermias, In Platonis Phaedrum, p. 108, 



whereas soul is beyond the range of all sense-per- 
ception. Then as for number, that Plato never 
called the soul ; but he called it motion perpetually 
self-moved and motion's source and principle. 6 By 
means of number and ratio and concord he did 
arrange its substance c underlying and receiving the 
fairest form, which by their agency arises in it ; but 
it is not the same, I think, to say that the soul is put 
together on a numerical pattern and to say that its 
essence is number, since <in fact) it is put together 
on the pattern of a concord but is not a concord, as 
he himself proved in the work on the Soul. d It is 
manifest too that these interpreters e have failed to 
understand the part about sameness and difference, 
for they say that to the generation of the soul the 
former contributes the faculty of rest and the latter 
that of motion/ whereas by Plato himself in the 
Sophist g existence and sameness and difference and 
besides these rest and motion are distinguished and 

6-17 and p. 118, 14-16 [Couvreur] ; Philoponus, De Aeterni- 
tate Mundi, p. 271, 18-23 and pp. 246, 27-247, 2 [Kabe]) ; 
cf Fernanda Decleva Caizzi, Acme, xxiii (1970), pp. 91-97. 

c See 1023 d infra (. . . rrjv ovatav . . . rrjs t/ivxys • • . 
TaTTOfiemjv \yn dpiOfiov). That is the procedure of Timaeus 
35 b 4 — 36 d 7, after which the soul is described as Xoyiafxov 
fi€T€XOVGa /cat apptovlas . . . /cat dvd Xoyov fi€piadcicra /cat 
auvSefletaa (36 e 6 — 37 a 4). With Plutarch's expression here 
cf infra 1015 E (. . . dpfiovta /cat dvaAoyt'a /cat dptfyuS xpcofievos 
opydvois), 1017 b (hiapiwoaiievos rots 7rpoarjKovaiv dpid/iols kcli 
Aoyotj), 1027 a, 1029 d-e, and 1030 c. 

d Phaedo 92 a 6 — 95 a 3. For d/)/xovta, translated as 
41 concord," see note-a on Plat. Quaest. II, 1001 c svpra. 

e Xenocrates and his followers. 

f See 1012 e supra with note a on page 166. 

9 Sophist 254 d 4 — 259 b 7 (especially 255 b 5-e 2 and 
256 c 5-d 4), to which Plutarch refers in De E 391 b and 
De Defectu Orac. 428 c also. 



(1013) €KOL(TTOV €KOLGTOV 8lCL(f)€pOV Kdl 7T€VT€ OVTCL X^P^ 

aXXrjXcov rtOepbevov /cat hiopit.ovros '. 

4. "O 1 ye /xtjv ovroi re Kotvfj /cat ot 7rAetcrT<H rwv 
E ^/)6o/X€va>v nAarco^t (fyofiovpLevoi /cat 7rapa\virov- 
fxevot 2 rravra fjLTjxavwvTOLL /cat 7rapaj8ta£ovTat /cat 
crrpe<f>ovcnv, a>s ti Seivov /cat apprprov olofievoi Selv 
TrepiKaXvirrew /cat apveladat, rrjv re rod Koafiov 
rr\v re rrjs ipvxf]S avrov yeveoiv /cat ovaraaiv, ovk 
e£ atSt'ou ovveorcbrtov 3 ov8e rov aireipov xP° vov 
oiirwg exovrojv 3 tot'a re Adyou rerevxe /cat jw apKe- 
aei prjdev on rov ire pi Secov ay cava /cat Adyov, cS 
nAara)v d/xoAoyet ^tAort/xorara 4 /cat 7rapa rjAiKtav 
TTpos rovs adeovs Kexprjodai, avyxeovoi /xaAAov Se 
oAa>9 avat/ooucrtv. 5 et yap ayevrjros 6 6 /cdcr/xo? 

1 oi -r. 2 7rapafivdovfX€voL -Turnebus. 3 ovv€<tt6tcov -v. 
4 ^tAori/icuTara -r. 5 avepovaiv -u. 6 dyevK^ro? -f, m, r. 

a According to Proclus (In Platonis Timaeum i, pp. 276, 
31-277, 1 [Diehl]) Plutarch, Atticus, and " many other 
Platonists " took the cosmogony of the Timaeus literally ; 
but Plutarch is the earliest of these named either by him 
(cf. op. cit., i, pp. 381, 26-382, 12 and for the psychogony 
ii, pp. 153, 25-154, 1 [Diehl]) or by Philoponus (Be Aeter- 
nitate Mundi, p. 211, 10-20 and p. 519, 22-25 [Rabe]), and 
his " many others " are probably later Platonists like 
Harpocration (Scholia Cod. Vat. f. 34 r in Proclus, In 
Platonis Rem Puhlicam ii, p. 377, 15-23 [Kroll]), who was 
a pupil of Atticus (cf. Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum i, p. 305, 
6-7 [Diehl]), the anonymous source of Diogenes Laertius, 
iii, 71-72 and 77 (cf. C. Andresen, Logos und Nomos [Berlin, 
1955], p. 283), and possibly even Severus with his '* cyclical " 
interpretation (Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum i, p. 289, 7-13 
and ii, pp. 95, 29-96, 1 ; cf. iii, p. 212, 7-9 [Diehl]) and the 
" eclectic " Galen (Compendium Timaei Platonis, p. 39, 
11-13 [Kraus-Walzer]). Before Plutarch, however, the 
literal interpretation of the Timaeus, on which Aristotle had 
insisted (Be Caelo 280 a 28-32 and 300 b 16-18, Physics 



set apart from one another as being five things 
different each from each. 

4. In any case, what frightens and embarrasses 
these men in common with most of those who study 
Plato a so that they manipulate and force and twist 
everything in the belief that they must conceal and 
deny it as something dreadful and unspeakable is the 
generation and composition b of the universe and of 
its soul which have not been compounded from ever- 
lasting or in their present state for infinite time. To 
this a treatise by itself has been devoted c ; and now 
it will suffice to state that these people confuse or 
rather utterly ruin the reasoning of Plato's case for 
the gods, d which he admits he made against the 
atheists with a zeal extreme and unsuited to his 
years. 6 For, if the universe is ungenerated, there is 

251 b 17-19, Metaphysics 1071 b 37—1072 a 3) but about 
which Theophrastus was uncertain {Phys. Opin., frag. 11 
[Dox. Graeci, pp. 485, 17-486, 2]), seems to have been 
adopted not only by the Peripatetics generally (cf. Philo- 
ponus, De Aeternitate Mundi, p. 135, 9-14 and his quota- 
tions from Alexander, ibid., pp. 213, 17-222, 17 [Rabe]) 
and the Epicureans (cf. Cicero, Be Nat. Beorum i, 18-21 
[Usener, Epicurea, pp. 245-246]) but also by Cicero (Timaeus 
5, p. 159, 2-3 [Plasberg] ; cf. Tusc. Disp. i, 63 and 70 and 
Acad. Prior, ii, 118) and by Philo Judaeus (De Aeternitate 
Mundi 13-16 = vi, pp. 76, 16-77, 20 [Cohn-Reiter]), who 
like Philoponus later appeals to Aristotle as the decisive 
authority for this interpretation. 

b For avaraaiv here cf. Plato, Timaeus 32 c 5-6 and 36 
d 8-9. 

c Presumably the lost work, No. 66 in the Catalogue of 
Lamprias, Tlcpl rod yeyovivai Kara HXdrwva rov koo(jlov (vii, p. 
474 and frag, xxviii on p. 140 [Bernardakis]). 

d Laws 891 e 4—899 d 4. 

e A somewhat inexact reminiscence of Laws 907 b 10-c 5, 
on which see E. B. England, The Laws of Plato (Man- 
chester, 1921), ii, p. 503. 



(1013) lorlv, ot^erat ra> HXdrcovi to Trpzafivrepav 1 rod 
F acofiaros ttjv tjruxty ofiaav i£dp)(€w fiera^oXijs /cat 
Kivrjaecos Trdorjs, rjyepiova /cat 7TpcoTovpy6v, d)$ 
avTOS €Lpr]K€v, eyKaOeartoaav . ris S* ovara /cat 
rtvo? ovros rj j/f^X 1 ? T °£ ooypbaros TTporepa /cat ttoc- 
ofSvripa Xeyercu yeyovevai, 7Tpoid)v 6 Xoyos evSec- 
£eTcu' rovro yap r\yvor\\iivov €ot/c€ ttjv TrXeioTrjv 
CLTTopiav /cat ditiaTiav Trape)(eiv rfjs dXrjOovs So£t?9. 
1014 5. Uptorov ovv r\v 6^0) irepl rovrcov 2 hidvoiav c/c- 
drjaoftai, 7narovfievo£ r<p ct/cort /cat Trapafivdov- 
/J<€vos, (b? eveori, to arjOes 3 tov Xoyov /cat irapd- 
8o£ov €7T€iTa rats' 4 Xe^eaiv iird^oj ovvolkclcov a/xa 
ttjv i^yrjGiv /cat ttjv diroSei^iv. €%€t yap ovto>s 
/cara ye ttjv ifirjv tcl TrpdypuaTa 86£av. " koctjjlov 
TovSe " <f>rjalv 'Hpa/cAetros 1 " oiVe Tt? #ecov oi>V 

1 Hubert (c/. 1013 f w/ra and 1002 f supra ; Timaeus 
34 c 4-5 ; £at£s 892 c 6 and 896 c 6) ; nptofivTepov -mss. 
(c/. Epinomis 980 d 6 and e 3). 

2 7repc Tovroiv -omitted by E, B. 

3 Wyttenbach (after the versions of Turnebus and Amyot) ; 
aXrjBes -MSS. 4 £tt€lt avraXs -Bernardakis. 

a Laws 896 a 5-c 8 (n.b. 896 b 1 : ^era/SoA^? re kcu 
^tvrjo-eajj andcrris atria aTraatv) with 892 a 2-c 6 (c/. in [Plato], 
Epinomis 980 d 6-e 3 the reference to " the main point ") ; 
and see Plat. Quaest. 1002 e-f supra with page 48, note a. 

6 Cf. infra 1016 C (. . . ijye/idva tou 7ravros iyKariar-qcrav) 
and 1017 B (. . . iyKardar^aav rfytfiova tou icoa/xou . . .)* m 
both places used of the created soul, i.e. the soul after it had 
been made rational by god. The title is not quoted from 
Plato, but cf. Timaeus 41 c 7 (fleiov Aeyd/xevov rjyepLovovv re) 
with Phaedo 80 a 3-9 and 94 c 10-d 2 and d>s hto-noTiv in 
Timaeus 34 c 5 (quoted in 1016 b infra). 

c This is not an exact quotation either but a reminiscence 
of Laws 897 a 4, where the soul's motions are called npco- 

TOVpyol KlVTjOSlS' 



an end of Plato's contention that the soul, being 
senior to the body, initiates all change and motion 
installed in her position of chiefs and, as he has said 
himself, of primary agent. c What is meant by soul 
and what by body when she is said to have been 
prior and senior to it, d this will be made plain by our 
account as it proceeds, for it is the failure to under- 
stand this that seems to occasion most of the per- 
plexity and incredulity about the true doctrine. 

5. First, therefore, I shall set down what I think 
about these matters, confirming and vindicating as 
far as may be by probability e what is unusual and 
paradoxical about my account f ; and then I shall ap- 
ply the interpretation and the demonstration to the 
texts, at the same time bringing them into accord 
with one another. ^ For in my opinion this is the 
way matters stand. " This universe was not made 
by anyone either god or man/' says Heraclitus h 

d Cf. Timaeus 34 c 4-5 (. . . kcu yevecra kcll ap€rfj 77 pore pav 
Kal irpeofivrepav *pvxty ad>p.aros . . . ovveorrjaaTo). 

e See 1013 b supra and page 172, note a. 

f See 1012 b supra (hia. to rols ttXziotois • • • virevavTiovodai 
Seoficvov 7rapafjLvdtas), and cf. Atticus, frag, vi init. (Baudry) 
= Eusebius, Praep. Evang. xv, 6, 3 (ii, pp. 359, 18-360, 4 

9 The object of ovvoLKeiwv is the texts, ras Aefet? " under- 
stood " from rats X^eauv (cf. Kiihner-Gerth, ii, pp. 575-576), 
and not, as Thevenaz has it, the interpretation and the demon- 
stration ; the reconciliation of apparently incompatible 
passages (1016 a and e infra) is itself taken to be an a7ro8etfis 
of Plutarch's interpretation (1015 f infra [chap. 8 init.]), a 
point overlooked by C. Theander in his treatment of this pas- 
sage (Plutarch und die Geschichte [Lund, 1951], pp. 42-43). 

* Heraclitus, frag. B 30 (D.-K. and Walzer) = f rag. 20 
(Bywater), quoted more fully by Clement of Alexandria, 
Stromata v, xiv, 104, 2 ; cf. M. Marcovich, R.-E. Supple- 
ment x (1965), cols. 261, 23-37 and 293, 51-66. 



(1014) OLvOpWTTOOV €1T0Lr)G€v" 0)G7T€p l (f)Opr)dels LIT) Oeov 2 

airoyvovres avdpwTrov nva yeyovevai tov kogliov 
Srj/jLiovpyov VTrovorjGOJLLev . z fSiXriov ovv Yi\aTO)vi 


XeyeLV kcll aSeLV " 6 li£v yap kclWlgtos tc7>v yeyo- 


vXtjv, i£ 179 yeyovev, ov yevoLievrjv dXXd vnoKei- 
Lievrjv del ra> SrjLiLovpyco els oidOcGiv Kal rd£w 


eLnrapaoyeiv ? ov yap e*K tov lit] ovtos rj yeveois 
dXX €K rod Lirj KaXcos LirjSe LKavcos e^ovTos, tbs 
oLKLas Kal LLLariov Kal dvhpLavTos. aKooLila yap 
r\v ra rrpo rrjs tov 7 kogliov yeveoeojs, aKOGLiia S' 
ovk aacu/xaro? ov& aKLvr)TOS ouS' difjvxos aAA' 

1 cos -r. 
2 Oeov -Benseler (De Hiatu, p. 528). 

3 VTTOVorfoOpLCV ~U. 

4 Diibner (from Timaeus 29 a 6) ; alncov -mss. 

5 Wyttenbach (after Xylander's version) ; avrrjs -mss. 

6 E, B, e, u ; -napaoxzlv -f, m, r, Escor. 72. 

7 rod -omitted by e, u, Escor. 72. 

9 Timaeus 29 a 5-6 ; cf. Plutarch, Quaest. Conviv. 720 b 
(o Sc Oeds tljv alriaiv apiorov). 

b The identification, ovaia Kal vXr], is Stoic according to 
Plutarch himself (see De Comm. Not. 1085 e-f infra with 
note a on f, and cf. De Amicorum Multitudine 97 a-b) ; 
but he so far adopts this terminology as even to use ovoia 
alone for what he considers to be Platonic vX-q {e.g. De 
Defectu Orac. 430 E [ov yap 6 deos dtioTTjoev . . . rrjv ovaiav 
dAAd . . . avrr\v . . . crafc]), for which cf. Diogenes Laertius, 
Hi, 70 (p. 149, 16-17 [Long]) and Dox. Graeci, p. 447 a 27 
(Areius Didymus) in contrast to p. 447 b 22 (Albinus). 

c See Plat. Quaest. 1001 b supra with note e there. 

d The Platonic source of this is Timaeus 29 e 3 — 30 a 3 
(cf 1015 B infra [. . . iravra fiovXofxevos avrto Kara hvvap.iv 


as if afraid lest by absolving god we get the notion 
that some human being had been the artificer of the 
universe. It is better, then, to be persuaded by 
Plato and, chanting " for it is the fairest of things 
that have come to be and he the best of causes, " a to 
assert that the universe has been brought into being 
by god whereas the substance or matter b out of 
which it has come into being did not come to be but 
was always available to the artificer to whom it 
submitted itself for disposing and ordering c and 
being made as like to him as was possible, d for the 
source of generation is not what is non-existent € but, 
as in the case of a house and a garment and a statue, 
what is not in good and sufficient condition. In fact, 
what preceded the generation of the universe was 
disorder/ disorder not incorporeal or immobile or 

e£o/noia>oru]). For the tendency to take that passage as 
identifying the demiurge with the model of the sensible 
universe see Plat. Quaest. 1007 c-d supra (eUoves . . • tov 
deov, rrjs fj.€v ovolas 6 Koofxos . . .) with page 89, note b ; cf. 
H. Dorrie, Museum Helveticum, xxvi (1969), pp. 222-223 
and Philornathes ; Studies . . . in Memory of Philip Merlan 
(The Hague, 1971), pp. 41-42. 

e Cf. Plutarch, Quaest. Conviv. 731 d (r-qv cV pi) ovtos 
napavotiajs i7T€Ladyovaa yivzoiv rols 7rpdyiJLacriv) and Adv. 
Colotem 1111 a, 1112 a, and 1113 c; for the general 
acceptance of the principle cf. Aristotle, Physics 187 a 27-29 
and 34-35 and 191 b 13-14 and Chalcidius, Platonis Timaeus, 
p. 323, 1-2 (Wrobel) = p. 296, 5-6 (Waszink). 

/ Cf. Dion x, 2 (962 u [. . . a> ro tt&v rjyovfidva) netOoficvov 
i£ aKoofitas Koofios eWi]), Quaest. Conviv. 615 f (tov ficyav 
Qeov vfjLtis rtov <f>ar€ rrjv aKoafXLav evra^ta /xcrajSaActv els kog^iov 
. . .), and with the rest of this paragraph Plat. Quaest. 
1003 a-b supra and Chalcidius, Platonis Timaeus, pp. 95, 
18-96, 4 (Wrobel) = pp, 80, 20-81, 7 (Waszink) with J. C. M. 
van Winden, Calcidius on Matter 2 (Leiden, 1965), pp. 



(1014) dfiop^ov (lev Kal davorrarou to awpaTtKov €fi- 
ttXtjktov Se /cat dXoyov to kivtjtikov e^owa* tovto 
8* fjv dvapfMoaTta fcvxfjs °^ K ^X°^ Gr l^ Xoyov. 6 yap 
Oeos ovt€ cr<S/xa to daco/xarov ovtc ifwx*J v ro difw- 

C X ov €7TOt7]a€^. dAAd 0JO7T€p dpflOVLKOV CLvSpCL Kal 
pvd/JLlKOV 1 OV <f>0)V7]V 7TOL€lV OlfSe KLVTJGIV iflfAcAfj 0€ 

<j>ojvr)v Kal kIvt\oiv evpvdpiov d^iovfiep ovtojs 6 Oeos 


aev a[JL<l>OT€pas ok tols dpxds napaXa^cov, tt)v fiev 
dfivSpdv Kal oKoT€Lvrjv tt)v Se TapaxojSrj Kal dvor)- 
tov aTeXels Se 2 tov TTpoarjKovTos dpicfroTepas Kal 

1 dvopa, pvdfi-qrLKov (with rj changed to i) -r. 
2 §€ -omitted by r. 

° In Timaeus 50 n 7 and 51 a 7 apiop^os is used of the 
** receptacle," whereas dovoraTov (used by Plato only in a 
different and irrelevant context [Timaeus 61 a 1]) shows 
that Plutarch is here referring to the " precosmic " chaos of 
Timaeus 53 a 8-b 4 (see 1016 e-f infra). 

6 For the expression cf. De hide 371 b ( T rjs foxi* T ° • • ■ 
dXoyov Kal I/xttAtjktov) ; the motivity is tt)v kivtjtiktjv -n?? vXrjs 
Kal . . . araKTov Kal dXoyov ovk dtpuxov be kivtjoiv (1015 E 

e I.e. ipvxfy ?ty irp6 Trjs KoofAOv y€V€0€tos TrX-rjuiieXtos ndvra 
Kal araKTcos Kivovaav (1016 C infra). dvappLoorla ipvxys is 
interpretation of to Trjs TraXaias avapfioorlas rrddos (Plato, 
Politicus 273 c 7-n 1), quoted by Plutarch at 1015 n infra ; 
see also 1017 C (eV Trjs npoTepas €^€cos dvapp.6oTov Kal dXoyov) 
and 1029 e infra (. . . dra^lav Kal TrXripLpLiXtiav iv rats Ktvrjcreat 
Trjs dvapfiooTov Kal dvorjrov ifrvxys • • •)• 

d See 1017 a infra (. . . ovxl oa>fiaTos dirXtos ovo' oyKov Kal 
vXrjs) and De E 390 D (owfia . . . arrTOV oyKov Kal dvTLTvirov) 
with the definition, awpia . . . oyKos avrtrvnos in [Plutarch], 
De Placitis 882 f {Box. Graeci, p. 310 a 10-11) and Sextus, 



inanimate but of corporeality amorphous and in- 
coherent a and of motivity demented and irrational, 5 
and this was the discord of soul that has not reason. c 
For god made neither the incorporeal into body nor 
the inanimate into soul ; but just as a man skilled in 
attunement and rhythm is expected not to create 
sound or movement either but to make sound tune- 
ful and movement rhythmical so god did not himself 
create either the tangibility and resistance of body d 
or the imagination and motivity of soul/ but he took 
over^ both the principles, the former vague and ob- 
scure g and the latter confused and stupid h and both 
of them indefinite and without their appropriate 

Adv. Math, i, 21 (p. 603, 12 [Bekker]). From Timaeus 
31 b 4-6 taken with 62 c 1-2 it could be inferred that cor- 
poreality entails tangibility and tangibility resistance (cf. 
Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum ii, p. 12, 20-23, p. 13, 2-12, 
and p. 17, 13-17 [Diehl]) ; but the explicit assertion that 
avTiTimia is the distinctive property of corporeality as differ- 
entiated from the geometrical solid is Epicurean and Stoic 
(see page 824, note a on De Comm. Not. 1080 c infra [es- 
pecially Sextus, Adv. Math, i, 21 and x, 221-222 ; S. V.F. ii, 
p. 127, 5-11 and p. 162, 29-31]). 

* See infra 1017 a (. . . two. <f>avTacrTiKr}s . . . <j>opas • • . 

bvVCLflLV aVTOKLVTjTOV KCLl <X€LKLV7JT0v) and 1024 A (. . . TTjV . • . 

<f>avTaartKr)v . . . Kivrjoiv . . .). Cf. De Sollertia Animalium 
960 D (ttov to €fiipvxov alcrdrjTiKov evdvs dvac /ecu <j>avraaTiKOv 
tt^vk^v) ; and for Plutarch's conception of to (Jhivtootlkov cf. 
Quomodo Quis . . . Sentiat Profectus 83 a-c, De Defectu Orac. 
437 e, and Coriolanus xxxviii, 4 (232 c). 

/ TrapaXaficov is from Timaeus 30 a 3-5 (cf. 68 e 1-3), 
cited by Plutarch at 1016 d infra (see also 1029 e infra and 
De Defectu Orac. 430 e [. . . napaXafiajv frafc . . .]). 

9 Cf. Plotinus, Enn. n, iv, 10, line 30 (to uto vocl d^vopcos 
dfivopov /ecu gkot€lvo)s gkotclvov . . .) ; in Thnaeus 49 a 3-4 
XaXerrov /cat apvopov etoos refers to the receptacle, X">P a ' 

h See infra 1015 e (v-rro rfjs dvorjrov rapaTTOficvrjv amas) 
and 1026 C (in(f>aLV€Tcu .' . . avrijs tw fi€v dXoyco to rapaxcoocs) . 



(1014) aopiorovs, era^e /cat Ste/cda/xr/ae /cat avvr\p\iooe y 

to kclXXmjtov aTtepyaoaixevos kcu reX^iorarov i£ 

avrwv £<Sov. rj ji€v ovv oxo/xaTOs ouata rrjc Aeyo- 

fi€V7]s in avrov 1 Travh^xovs (frvoeajs eSpas re /cat 

D TcOrjvrjs tcjv yevrjrciov 2 oz>x ire pa ris iarcv. 3 

6. Ttjv 0€ rrjs ^jvx^ *v <I>tAr;j5aj p,kv arreipiav 
K€K\rjK€v, dpiOfiov /cat Xoyov oreprjoiv ovoav eXXei- 

1 E, B ; an avrov -e, u, f, m, r, Escor. 72. 

2 yevvrjTCjv -f, m, r, Escor. 72. 

3 Aldine ; ion -mss. 

a This idiomatic use of dreAe's with the genitive is so 
frequent in Plutarch that its occurrence here is not likely 
to be a reminiscence of the pun in Phaedrus 248 b 4 (drcXcls 
r-rjs rov ovros Ocas) or to have any of the profound signifi- 
cance seen in it by Thevenaz (UAme du 31onde y p. 18, n. 47). 

6 Cf. Timaeus, 30 b 4-c 1, 30 d 1 — SI a 1, 32 d 1 f., 68 k 
1-6, 69 b 8-c 3, 92 c 5-9 ; with Plutarch's ovvrjpuooc cf 
Timaeus 36 e 1 (ovvayayo>v trpocn^cyioTTev). 

c Timaeus 51 a 7 (7rayo>x € 's [cf. 50 b 6 : rijs rd iravra 
^€XOjx4vr)s ocofxara <f>vo€ios])i 52 B 1 (ISpav 8e trap€X ov ocra l^et 
yivtoiv rracnv), 49 A 5-6 (7rdor)S etvai yevcoccos virohox^v avrrjv 
olov TL0rjV7)v). It is to describe the role of x^pa, itself incor- 
poreal and imperceptible to sense (Timaeus 51a 4-b 2 and 
52 a 8-b 2), that Plato uses these terms ; but to Plutarch 
they are indifferently designations of vXr] (see infra 1015 d, 
1023 a, 1024 c; cf. Quaest. Convh. 636 d and be hide 
372 e-e) and, as in this chapter, of corporeality, with which 
uAi] is thus identified (see 1023 a infra : he^apmvriv . . . 
iKtlvqv [scil. aatfiaTLKTjv vXrjv] . . . pbdXXov &€ oxo/4 a . . .) and 
which is taken to have existed in precosmic disorder (see 
1017 a infra [ovxt owparos a^Acus" • • • tfv 6 Seos . . . 
Snuiovpyos] ; cf. Plat. Quaest. 1003 a supra [. . . to dp.op<j)ov 
Utopia . . . and Ik awpiaros cltolktov . . .], and see page 173, 
note c supra). This precosmic matter Plutarch even calls 
perceptible (1024 b infra [to atafhrov . . . fy dpLop<f>ov Kal 
doptoTov]), although he had already insisted that Platonic 
matter is entirely devoid of quality (1014 f — 1015 d infra) 
and had asserted that vXn becomes tangible and visible, i.e. 



perfection,* and he ordered and arrayed and fitted 
them together, producing from them the living being 
supremely fair and perfect. 5 So the substance of 
body is none other than what is called by Plato the 
omnirecipient nature, abode and nurse of the things 
that are subject to generation. 

6. As for the substance of soul, in the Philebus he 
has called it infinitude d as being privation of number 

perceptible body, only when shaped by participation in the 
intelligible (see 1013 c supra with Plat. Quaest. 1001 d-e). 
When in [Plutarch], De Placitis 882 c (Dox. Graeci, p. 308 
a 4-9 and b 5-9 ; cf. Theodoret, Graec. Affect. Curatio 
iv, 13) the Platonic " receptacle " is called uAr? and char- 
acterized as at once corporeal and without quality, it may 
be an example of the identification of Platonic " primary 
matter " with the Stoic a-n-oiov orai/xa (cf. Simplicius, Phys., 
p. 227, 23-26 = S. V.F. ii, frag. 326). Others, however, who 
identified the receptacle with uA^, asserted that, being 
without quality, it is neither corporeal nor incorporeal but 
potentially corporeal (Albinus, Epitome viii, 3 [Louis] = 
p. 163, 3-7 [Hermann] ; Apuleius, De Platone i, 5 = p. 87, 
10-20 [Thomas]; Hippolytus, Refutatio i, 19, 3 = pp. 19, 
13-20, 1 [Wendland] ; Chalcidius, Platonis Timaeus, 
pp. 342, 16-344, 20 [Wrobel] = pp. 314, 17-316, 13 [Wa- 
szink]), an expedient obviously borrowed from Aristotle {De 
Generatione 329 a 33 ; cf. Areius Didymus, Epitomes Frag. 
Phys. 2 [Dox. Graeci, p. 448, 3-12] and " Ocellus Lucanus " 
ii, 6 [24] = p. 16, 22-24 [Harder]). 

d This assertion (see 1014 e infra : ev 8c OtArjj8o> . . . 
a.7T€Lpiav . . . ttj «/»i»x??) i s justified by nothing in the Philebus, 
not even by Philebus 26 b 6-10 (the limitless appetites of 
wantonness and vice) or 27 e 1 — 28 a 4 and 52 c (pleasures 
and pains in the class of to aTrecpov), for the nature of soul 
is not in question there and such " psychic infinitude " is 
expressly just one example among many of the aireipia in the 
world (cf Philebus 16 c 9-10, 24 a— 25 a, 25 c 5-d 1). In 
De E 391 b-c the dneipov of the Philebus, though taken to 
correspond to the klvyjqls of the Sophist, is said by its com- 
bination with the irepas to constitute ndaav yevcmv. 



(1014) ifiews 1 r€ /cat V7T€pf}oXrjs /cat 8ia<f>opas koll avofioio- 
ttjtos iv auTTj 7T€pas ouSei; ovSe pbirpov e^ouaav 
iv Si Tcfiaico rrjv rfj dfjcepiarco avyKepavvvjxivrjv 
</>vo€i /cat 7repl rd acu/xara ylyveodai Xeyofiivqv 

fX€ptGT7]V OVT€ TrXfjdoS €V fJLOVaOl /Cat CTTty/Xat? OUT€ 

/Z77/07 /cat 7rXdrrj Aeyca&xt vopnoriov , a acofxaai 
irpoarjKei /cat Gcojidrajv jxaXXov rj rrjs ifrvx^s iariv, 
dXXa t^v drcLKTov /cat dopiorov avroKivrjTov Se /cat 
KLvrjriKrjv dpxrjv eKeivqv, rjv ttoXXclxov fxev dvdy- 
E /C7jv ev Se Tots' No/tot? avriKpvs i/jvx^v. draKrov 

€Lp7]K€ /Cat KCLKOTTOLOV aVTTj ydp T}V l/^X ? K€L ^ ^ ay " 

t^v, vou 0€ /cat XoytOfMov /cat dpfiovlas ejjL(f>povos 
/x€t4ux^v, iva kog/jlov i/jvxV yivrjrcu. /cat yd/) rd 

1 i\Xijij;sa)S -T. 

Timaeus 35 a 1-3. 

b See (lepLarov oe to nXrjdos in the Xenocratean interpreta- 
tion (1012 e supra) and in 1033 d infra ix fiovabtov cor- 
responding to the preceding yxTJre rot? dpifyxofr as ouSe 
ypafj.fjt.cbv ovb 1 imcfxivcitov corresponds to the preceding fir t r€ 
Tols nepacn. For kcu cmyfials in a reference to the Xenocratean 
interpretation cf. Aristotle, Be Anima 409 a 3-7 with 
Cherniss, Aristotle's Criticism of Plato . . ., p. 396 and n. 322 
and W. Theiler, Aristoteles uber die Seele (Berlin, 1959), 
p. 101 ad 18, 1. 

c As in the Posidonian interpretation of chap. 22 infra 
(see in 1023 B Sefa/xcvoi tt)v tojv TTtpdrtov ovaiav xrepi to. acoaara 
XeyeaOai fiepLorrjv and in 1023 D ovoe ypauutov ou$* £mtj>av€icov 
corresponding to firJTt rots iripatn [see the last note supra]). 
For the distinction between the arithmetical and the geo- 
metrical interpretations cf. Iamblichus in Stobaeus, Eel. i, 
49, 32 (pp. 363, 26-364,' 12 [Wachsmuth]) and Proclus, In 
Platonis Timaeum ii, p. 153, 18-25 (Diehl). 

d Cf. Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum ii, pp. 153, 25-154, 1 
(Diehl) : . . . ficpiorrjv fikv ovaiav \4yovoi rr\v aXoyov mpoovaav 
ttjs XoyiKTJs . . ., KaQatrep HXovrapxos Kal 'Attikos, • • • 

c See 1014 e infra (rrjv iv Ttaaico Xeyofievrjv dvdyKTjv) and 



and ratio and having in itself no limit or measure of 
deficiency and excess and difference and dissimilitude; 
and in the Timaeus that which is blended together 
with the indivisible nature and is said to become 
divisible in the case of bodies a must be held to mean 
neither multiplicity in the form of units and points b 
nor lengths and breadths, which are appropriate to 
bodies and belong to bodies rather than to soul, but 
that disorderly and indeterminate but self-moved 
and motive principle d which in many places he has 
called necessity e but in the Laws has openly called 
disorderly and maleficent soul/ This, in fact, was 
soul in itself g ; but it partook of intelligence and rea- 
son and rational concord h that it might become the 
soul of the universe. For the aforesaid omnireci- 

1015 a infra (axnrep eV IIoAiTi/cai Xeyerai . . . avdyKrj . . .) 
with the notes there. 

f In 1015 e infra Plato is said to have called it 0uxV 
cvavriav /cat avriVaAov rfj ayaOovpytp (cf De Iside 370 f), 
which is closer to the terminology of Laws 896 d 5 — 898 c 8 
(especially 896 e 5-6, 897 b 3-4, 897 d 1, and 898 c 4-5), 
the passage that Plutarch has in mind. For his interpreta- 
tion of it, which Atticus adopted, cf Proclus, In Platonis 
Timaeum i, p. 382, 2-12 and p. 391, 8-12 (Diehl) ; cf also 
that of Numenius (p. 94, 6-11 [LeemansD in Chalcidius, 
Platonis Timaeus, p. 326, 12-17 (Wrobel) = p. 299, 14-18 
(Waszink). In fact, the passages of the Laws envisage no 
such evil " world-soul " as Plutarch reads into them and 
lend no support to the identification of evil soul or of soul at 
all with the " necessity " or with the " divisible being M of 
the Timaeus (cf Cherniss, Proceedings of the American 
Philosophical Society, xcviii [1954], p. 26, n. 29 ; H. Herter, 
Rhein. Mus., c [1957], pp. 334-335 ; H. Gorgemanns, Bei- 
trage zur Interpretation von Platons Nomoi [Miinchen, 
19601, P- 200, n. 1). 

' See 1024 a infra : vvv ovx a7rXd>s *l* v xh v ' • • • 
h Cf Timaeus 36 e 6—37 a 1 ; see 1016 b infra and Plat. 
Quaest. 1001 c with note a and 1003 a supra. 



(1014) 7Tav8€%€S KCU vXlKOV €K€WO fltyedoS /X€V €K€KTrjTO 

koll hidarrnia /cat x^P av y xdXXovs Se /cat pLop(f)r)s 
/cat axrjfidrcov fMerpcorTjrog ivSetos el^v e'Aa^e 8e 
tovtcdv, Iva yrjs /cat daXdrrrjs /cat ovpavov /cat 
doTepoJv (f)VTcbv re /cat ^ojojv TravToSarrd awfiara 
/cat opyava yiyvrjraL 1 Koopjrfiiv. ol Se rrjv £v Tt- 
/zaioj XeyofJLevqv dvdyKrjv iv Se OiAt^Sco Trepl to 
jjl&XXov /cat tjttov eXXcLipews 2 /cat V7T€pfioXr]S dfJL€- 
rpiav /cat drreiplav rfj vXr] TTpooriOivres dXXd p/t] 
F rfj tfcvxfj, 7TOV 3 diqaovTai to ttjv vXtjv del piev dp,op- 
<j>ov /cat dax^JP^dTLGTOV vrf avTov XeyeaBac /cat rrd- 

G7)S TTOLOTrjTOS /Cat 8vvdfJL€(x)S OLK€lOLS €p7)p,OV £t/CCL- 

1 yivqrai -Bernardakis. 

2 iXXrjfcws -r ; [cXXdipccDs kgli vnepPoXrjs] -deleted by 
Th6venaz (VAme du Monde, p. 19, n. 62). 

3 Turnebus ; i/svx*j yc ov -mss. (fpvxv » . . vac. 16 -f ; vac. 
17 -m ; vac. 10 -r ... ye ov). 

a See 1014 c supra with page 185, note c. 

b For x<*>P a in this sense °f " room " in which to hold 
something cf. Be Comm. Not. 1077 e infra (rod hiaoraoiv 
ovk cxovros ovbe x<*>p av & olvtco) and Quaest. Conviv. 707 b 
(x<A>pav nXaKovvrv KaraXnr€Lv), 

c Timaeus 47 e 4r— 48 a 7, 56 c 3-7, and 68 e 1—69 a 5. 
For the attribution to which Plutarch here objects cf. 
" Timaeus Locrus " 93 a; Diogenes Laertius, iii, 75-76 
(p. 151, 17-24 [Long]) ; Aetius i, 26, 3 {Box. Graeci, p. 321 a 
18-19 and b 19-20) ; Numenius (p. 97, 1-5 [Leemans]) in 
Chalcidius, Platonis Timaeus, p. 328, 8-11 (Wrobel) = p. 301, 
18-20 (Waszink) and ibid., pp. 299, 14-301, 22 (Wrobel) = 
pp. 273, 15-275, 17 (Waszink) ; Plotinus, Enn. i, viii, 7, 
lines 4-7; Proclus, In Platonis Cratyluin, p. 112, 25-28 
(Pasquali). Even Lamprias in Be Befectu Orac. 435 f — 
436 a is made to interpret Plato as ovk dnoorepcvv r-qv vXrjv 



pient and material principle ° too already possessed 
magnitude and dimension and spaciousness b ; but it 
was in want of beauty and shape and regularity of 
figures, and these were allotted to it that it might be 
reduced to order and then become all the various 
bodies and organs of plants and animals and of earth 
and sea and sky and stars. Those, however, who 
attribute to matter and not to the soul what in the 
Timaeus is called necessity c and in the Philebus 
measurelessness and infinitude in the varying degrees 
of deficiency and excess, d what will they make of 
the fact that by Plato matter is said always to be 
amorphous and shapeless and devoid of all quality 
and potency of its own e and is likened to odourless 

roiv avayKatoov irpos to ycyvoficvov cutiojv, and in Quaest. 
Conviv. 720 b-c Plutarch in his own person interpreting the 
Timaeus speaks of the universe as perpetually involved in 
generation and change Bid tt\v cru^vrov dvdyxrjv tov ao^iaTos. 

d Philebus 24 a — 25 a and 25 c 5-d 1 (see page 185, note 
d supra). For the attribution to which Plutarch here ob- 
jects cf. Hermodorus according to Dercyllides as reported 
from Porphyry by Simplicius, Phys.,, p. 247, 34-35 ; Proclus, 
In Platonis Timaeum i, p. 263, 10-14 and p. 384, 29-30 
(Diehl) and Be Malorum Subsistentia, col. 236, 21-24 
(Cousin) = § 35, 19-21 (Boese) ; Aristides Quintilianus, De 
Musica iii, 11 (p. 110, 2-9 [Winnington-Ingram]). 

e Timaeus 50 b 6-c 2, 50 d 7-e 1, 50 e 4-5, and 51a 4-7, 
where as in the following simile {Timaeus 50 e 5-8) the 
subject is the receptacle, i.e. ^oopa, and not vX-q (see to 
7rav&€X€S Kal vXlkov [1014 e supra] and page 185, note c 
supra). With Plutarch's statement here cf. Albinus, Epitome 
viii, 2 (p. 49, 6-11 [Louis] = p, 162, 30-36 [Hermann]) ; Dox. 
Graeci, p. 308 a 4-9 and b 5-9 ; and Chalcidius, Platonis 
Timaeus, p. 356, 8-12 (Wrobel) = p. 326, 3-6 (Waszink). 
With his Svvdpeajs otVeia? €pr)iiov cf. dpyov cf avrov (1015 a 
infra) ; Proclus, Elements of Theology 80 (p. 76, 5-6 [Dodds]) : 
Simplicius, Categ., p. 249, 26-27 ; Olympiodorus, In Platonis 
Pkaedonem, p, 40, 19-21 (Norvin), 



(1014) £ecr#at 8' dcooeatv iXaLois a rrpos rds fia(f)as oi 
1015 pvpeifjol Xajx^dvovaiv ; ov yap olov re to clttoiov 
/cat apyov i£ avrov /cat appends 1 alrLav /ca/coO /cat 
apxfy 2 VT7OTi0€o6ai rov YiXdrajva /cat KaXelv a7ra- 
piav alaxpdv /cat /ca/co7rotov a£#t9 8' avdyKTjv 7roAAa 
to) Qea> SvcrfJLaxovoav /cat d^rjvid^ovaav . 3 r} ydo 
dvaorpecfyovoa rov ovpavcv, a)G7rep cv rioAtTt/caj 
Xeyerai, /cat aVeAtTTOwa 77009 rovvavrLov dvay/cr/ 
/cat ovficpVTOs €7TLvvfJLLa /cat to T779 TraAat 7tot€ 
(f>vaea)S ovvrpo(f)ov 7roXXrjs jxerexov dra^ias irplv 
els rov vvv koojjlov a<f>iKea6ai" irodev iyyeyove 6 
rots Trpdy[L(X(jiv el to p»ev vrroKelpievov drroios 6 rjv 
vXrj /cat apioipov 1 air Las aTrdor]s 6 Se Srjpaovpyos 
B dyados /cat nravra fiovXojJLevos avrtp Kara ovvapnv 
e^ofJioitbaai rpirov he rrapa ravra firjoev; at yap 

1 E, B ; ap€7T€s -e, u, f, m, r, Escor. 72. 

2 /ecu apxhv Ka *- <*-Pxh v "£ 

3 a</>avi£ov<7av -r. 

4 ovfi<f>vrois -e, u (corrected in margin). 

5 E, B, 11 ; iydyovc -e ; iy€yov€t -f, m, r, Escor. 72. 

6 dnoLOS -B ; arroiov -E ; a7roto^ -all other mss. 
7 dfjioipos -Wyttenbach. 

This substitution for ra Scf o/xeya uypd raj da/xaj of 
Timaeu8 50 e 7-8 is made by Albinus too in Epitome viii, 2 
(p. 49, 12-13 [Louis] = p. 162, 37 f. [Hermann]). For oil as 
the base of perfumes cf. with Plutarch, De hide 374 e and 
Quaest. Conviv. 661 c especially Theophrastus, De Odoribus 
§§ 14-20 and Pliny, N.H. xiii, 7. 

6 The terminology is Stoic. See infra De Stoic. Repug. 
1054 a and De Comm. Not. 1076 c-d with note c there ; and 
cf. De hide 374 e, where v\r)> which in 372 f was char- 
acterized as petrovaa cUi npos to jSc'Atiov cf iavrijsi is ex- 
pressly used not in the Stoic sense of dtpux^v n ocopia Kal 
airoiov apyov T€ Kal anpaKrov ef eavrov. 

e This expression, not used by Plato, combines Plutarch's 



oils which makers of perfume take for their in- 
fusions ? For what is without quality and of itself 
inert and without propensity b Plato cannot suppose 
to be cause and principle of evil and call ugly and 
maleficent infinitude c and again necessity which is 
largely refractory and recalcitrant to god. d In fact, 
the necessity and " congenital desire " whereby the 
heaven is reversed, as is said in the Politicus/ and 
rolled back in the opposite direction and " its 
ancient nature's inbred character which had a large 
share of disorder before reaching the state of the 
present universe," -f whence did these come to be in 
things if the substrate was unqualified matter and 
so void of all causality and the artificer good and so 
desirous of making all things resemble himself as far 
as possible 9 and third besides these there was 
nothing ? For we are involved in the difficulties of 

interpretations of the Philebus and the Lairs in 1014 d-e 
supra (see pages 185, note d and 187, note/). In contrast 
to Plutarch cf. Proclus, In Platonis Timaen tn i, p. 175, 8-10 
(Diehl) with Plotinus, Enn. n, iv, 16, lines 19-24 and Olym- 
piodorus, In Platonis Phaedonem, p. 40, 19-20 (Norvin). 

d Cf. De hide 371 A-B (. . . Trpos rrjv ^Xriova act Sucr/ia- 
Xovaav . . . and . . . dtfaviaonol Tv<f>d)vos) ; De Virtute 
Morali 442 a-b and 451 d. 

e Politicus 272 e 5-6 (dvcXiTTovoa from dvelX^ts in 270 
u 3 and 286 b 9), for the of which Plutarch here 
substitutes dvdytcq^ a substitution which he may have thought 
justified by Politicus 269 d 2-3 (. . . avra> to avairaXiv levcu 
. . . €^ dvdyKvs €fi<f)VTov ycyove) or on the ground alleged in 
1026 b infra (. . . dvdyxnv, rjv ol ttoXXol KaXovoiv). 

f Politicus 273 b 4-6 with slight adaptation but with the 
significant omission of the immediately preceding to owpa- 
rocioes rrjs ovyKpdo€<x)s (contrast Qnaest. Conviv. 720 b-c , . .* 
hid rr)v ovp.<f>vrov dvayKT/v rov oa>p.aTos • • m cited in note c on 
1014 e supra). 

Timaeus 29 e 1 — 30 a 3 (see note d on 1014 b supra). 



(1015) TiTtoiKal KaraXapbfidvovoiv Tj/xa? airoplai, to kukov 
€K rov fjirj ovros dvatriojs /cat dyevrjrojs 1 erreio- 
ayovras, eVet rtbv y' ovtojv ovre rdyadov ovre to 
olttoiov eiKos eartv ovaiav kclkov Kai yeveaiv napa- 
oy/lv. aAAd ravro IlXdrojv 2 ovk tirade rols vore- 

pOV y OlfSe TTCLplhtOV (1)S €K€lvOL T7JV fl€Ta£v TTjS vXfjS 

/cat rov Oeov rpLTTjv dpxrjv /cat Svvapuv vnepbetve 
tcjjv Xoyojv rov 3 drorrwrarov , erretooSiov ovk otSa 
ottojs Troiovvra rr)v ra>v KCLKtbv <f)vaLv oV avro- 
pbdrov Kara ovpbfieftrjKos . ^mKovpco /xev yap ouS' 
C CLKapes ey/cAtvat rrjv dropiov ovyxojpovoLV, u>s av- 
airiov erreiodyovr^ Ktvrjaw €/c rov pir) ovros ' avrol 
8e KaKiav Acat /ca/coSat/xoytW rooavrrjv erepas re 
rrepl ucofia pwpias droTTias /cat Svoxepeias, alriav 
ev rats dpxals ovk exovoas, kclt irraKoXovdrjaiv 
yeyovevai Xeyovotv. 

7. c O Se ITAaTa>i> ovx ovtojs, aAAd rrjv ye 5 vXrjv 
1 ay€vvr)TO)s -f, m, r. 2 -nXdrroiv -Escor. 72. 

8 to -f, m, r. 4 eVcidyovres -r. 

5 aAAd y€ /ecu -f, m, r. 

a See De Comm. Not. 1076 c-d m/ra ; c/. Dtf hide 369 d 
(et yap ouoev dvamajs 7T€(/>vk€ yevioOai alriav Se kolkov rdyadov 
ovk av wapdaxoL, Set yeveaiv toiav /cat dp\7]v toenrtp dyadov Kai 
KaKov r-qv <f>vcnv ex€iv) and Numenius (p. 93, 13-16 [Lee- 
mans]) in Chalcidius, Platonis Timaeus, pp. 325, 22-326, 

3 (Wrobel) = p. 299, 5-7 (Waszink). 

h For ovhi in this sense cf. W. J. Verdenius, Mnemosyne, 

4 Ser. vi (1953), p. 109 ; vii (1954), p. 68 ; and ix (1956), 
p. 249. 

c This "third principle" is ifivxy Ka9* iavrrjv (1014 f 
supra), whereas the rplry\v nvd /xera£u <j>voiv . . . of De Islde 
370 f — 371 a is Platonic u matter," there said to be ovk 
dipvxov . . . ovb* aKLvrjrov ef avrrjs- 

d i.e. the Stoics, who themselves o/uoiov re etval <f>aat,v Kai 



the Stoics by bringing in evil without cause and 
process of generation out of what is non-existent, a 
since of things that do exist neither what is good nor 
what is without quality is likely to have occasioned 
evil's being or coming to be. The same thing did not 
happen to Plato, however, as did to those who came 
later, for b he did not as they did by overlooking the 
third principle and potency, which is intermediate 
between matter and god, c acquiesce in the most 
absurd of doctrines that makes the nature of evils 
supervenient I know not how in a spontaneously 
accidental fashion. The fact is that they, d while 
conceding to Epicurus not even the slightest swerve 
of the atom, on the ground that he thus brings in 
uncaused motion from what is non-existent, 6 do 
themselves assert that vice and so much unhappiness 
as there is and countless other monstrous and dis- 
agreeable features of body are without any cause 
among the principles but have arisen by way of 
incidental consequence/ 

7. This is not Plato's way, however ; but, exempt- 

ofxoitos aovvarov to dvatrCws tco yiveodai rt eV [if) ovros (Alex- 
ander, Be Fato, p. 192, 14-15 [Bruns] = £. V.F. ii, p. 273, 
14-15). See also next note infra. 

* Usener, Epic-urea, p. 201, 21-23 (in frag. 281). Cf. the 
passages cited in note a on Be Stoic. Repug. 1045 b-c and 
in note c on 1050 c infra, among them especially De Sollertia 
Animalium 964 c; Cicero, Be Fato 18, 20, and 22-23; 
Galen, Be Placitis Hippoc. et Plat, iv, 4 (p. 361, 14-16 

* Cf. S.V.F. i, p. vi, lines 7-10 and ii, frag. 1170 (Aulus 
Gellius, vu, i, 7-13) ; Marcus Aurelius, vi, 36 ; [Plutarch], 
Consolatio ad Apollonium 117 d-e (. . . ovre tu>v Kara 
rrporfy ovfX€vov Aoyov aujijSaivdvTtov oure tcov Kar £TxaKo\ovQr}oiv) ; 
Philo Jud. in Eusebius, Praep. Evang. viii, 14, 45-59 (espe- 
cially i, p. 474, 20-22 and p. 476, 7-8 [Mras]). 



(1015) 8ia<j>opas dTrdorjs aTraXXdrrwv /cat rod 6eov rr)v 
rcov kolkcov alriav aTrcordrco nOi/xevos ravra 7T€pl 
rod Koa/JLOV y£ypa<f>€V iv t<5 UoXiru<a>. " Trapd 
fi€V yap rod tjvvdevros 1 rrdvra rd /caAd 2 KeKrrjrar 
Trapd 8e rrjs epLnpoodev t£ecos ooa ^aXeTrd /cat 
d'St/ca iv ovpavco ytyverai, ravr i£ e/cetVn? avros 
D re eyei /cat tols t>wois iv an epyd^er at." /cat pu- 

KpOV €TL TTpOeXdtOV " TTpOlOVTOS 84 " <j>7]Ol " TOV XpO~ 

vov z /cat \r)6r)s iyyiyvopLevrjs iv avrco p&XXov 8vvcl- 
orevei* ro rrjs TraXatds avappoorlas rrddos " /cat 
Kiv8vvevei " 8taXvd€LS els rov rrjs avopLOiorrjros 
aTteipov ovra to7tov " 8dvat TrdXw. dvopoLorrjs 8e 
rrepl rrjv vXrjv, arroiov /cat d8id<f)opov ofioav, ovk 
eartv. dXXd fxerd ttoXXcdv dXXojv /cat JLvStj/jlos 
dyvorjoas Kareipa>veverai rov HXdrcovos ws ovk 
ev rr)v h TToXXaKis vtt* avrod prjrepa /cat riOrjvrjv 
Trpooayopevopevrjv alriav /ca/ccuv /cat dp^v 6 a7ro<f>ai- 

1 £w0£vtos -r ; gcXQdvros -e, u, f, m, Escor. 72, Aldine ; 
rov . . . vac. 10 -E ; vac. 6 -B . . . Odvros -E, B. 

2 -rravra rd icaAd -mss. (so Cod. B, Vat. 225, and Ven. 185 
of Plato ; and Clement, Stromata in, iii, 19, 5) ; irdvra kolXcl 
-all other mss. of Plato (so Theodoret, Proclus, Philoponus, 

3 §€ rov xp^vov <f>rjcl -B. 

4 fidXXov koX hwaorevei -Plato, Politicus 273 c 7. 

5 o*)S ovk ev rrjv -e, u ; a>? ouk avrrjv -f, m, r, Escor. 72, 
Aldine ; a>s . . . vac. 7-8 . . . rrjv -E, B. 

6 E, B ; kolkcov tC o-pXV v ~ e » u » Escor. 72 (pl£av in margin) ; 
kcxkwv pi£av apxrjv -f, m, r, Aldine. 

a Politicus 273 b 6-c 2. 
b Politicus 273 c 6-d 1. 



ing matter from all differentiation and putting the 
cause of evils at the farthest remove from god, he 
has written about the universe as follows in the 
Politicus a : " For it has got from him who constructed 
it all it has that is fair but from its previous state 
whatever troubles and iniquities occur in the universe 
— from that source it has these itself and produces 
them in its living beings." And a little further on 
still he says : " But with the passage of time and the 
setting in of forgetfulness the effect of the ancient 
discord becomes more potent," & and it is in danger 
of sinking again " dissolved into the boundless region 
of dissimilitude." c Dissimilitude, however, is not 
connected with matter, since matter is without 
quality or differentiation.^ Yet from misapprehen- 
sion shared with many others even Eudemus rallies 
Plato for not doing right in declaring her to be the 
cause and principle of evils whom he frequently calls 
by the name of mother and nurse. e In fact, while 

c Politicus 273 d 6-e 1. In Plato's sentence ttoXw goes 
with the words that follow (ndXtv cfcbpos . . . yiyvd/zevo?) 
and not with the preceding Bvrj as in rlutarch's paraphrase, 
Kiv&vv€V€i, . . . hvvcu ttoXiv. On the other hand, all the mss. 
of Plato like all those of Plutarch have ronov (cf also 
Plotinus, Enn. i, viii, 13, lines 16-17 ; Eusebius, Praep. 
Evang. xi, 34, 4) and not the ttovtov adopted by Burnet, 
Taylor, and Dies on the authority of Proclus and Simplicius 
(cf the articles listed in Lustrum, iv [1959], p. 148 [# 746] 
and v [1960], p. 602 [# 1987]). 

d See 1014 f supra with note e there. 

e Eudemus, frag. 49 (Wehrli) ; cf U. Schobe, Quaestiones 
Eudemeae (Diss. Halle, 1931), pp. 43-45 and Cherniss, 
Aristotle's Criticism of Plato . , ., note 62 (pp. 95-97, 
especially p. 97). Eudemus is called by Simplicius (Phys. t 
p. 411, 15-16 ; cf p. 133, 21-22) the most genuine disciple 
of Aristotle. 



(1015) vovros. 6 yap YlXdrojv [xrjrepa fiev Kal rcdrjvrjv koXu 
E ttjv vXtjv airiav he kclkov ttjv KivrjriKrjv rrjs vXtjs 
Kal Trepl rd acofxara yiyvo\Livy]v pL€ptarr]u draKrov 
Kal dXoyov ovk aifjvxov 8e klvtjcjlv, rjv iv Nouots" 
ajairep eiprjrai ifivx^v ivavriav /cat avrlrraXov rfj 
ayadovpyco TTpooelne. ipvxrj yap alria Kivr\o€U)s Kal 
apxtf, vovs Se rd^eoos /cat ovjx^ojvias rrepl klvtjolv. 
6 yap 6eos ovk dvearrjoe rrjv vX'qv apyovoav aAA' 
€OTrjG€v vrro rrjs dvo-qrov Taparroixevrjv 1 atrlas* ouS' 
dp\as rfj <f)V(j€i (jLeraftoXfjs Kal iradcov Trap€ax €v > 
aXX ovotjs iv rrddeoi rravroharrols /cat pLerafioXals 
ar&KTois i^elXe rrjv rroXXrjv dopiuriav Kal TrA^^ze- 
Xeiav apfjLovla Kal avaXoyia Kal dpcOfxcp ^pto/x€vo9 
opydvois, &v epyov iarlu ov fierafioXfj Kal Ktvrjatt 2 
F €T€poTrjTOs rrddrj Kal oiafiopas 3 irapix^iv rols 

7TpaTTO/J,€V7]V -f. 

2 epyov fierafioXrjv Kal Kivr\oiv -r (p,€ra^oXr]v Kal Kivr\oiv -f 1 
[in margin], m 1 [in margin]). 

3 &ia<j>opas -H. C. (" diversitatis et differentiae " -Turne- 
bus) : Sia^opas -mss. 

a For " mother " cf Timaeus 50 d 2-4 and 51a 4-5 and 
for " nurse " Timaeus 49 a 5-6, 52 n 4-e 1, and 88 n 6. 
With Plutarch's statement cf " Timaeus Locrus " 94 a (rav 
8' vXav eV/u-ayctoi' Kal fxarepa riQavav re . . .) ; Albinus, 
Epitomev'iii, 2 (p. 49, 1-2 [Louis] = p. 162, 25-27 [Hermann]) ; 
Chalcidius, Platonis Timaeus, p. 304, 4-7 and p. 336, 18-19 
(WrobeI) = pp. 277, 18-278, 2 and p. 309, 11-12 (Waszink); 
and see page 185, note e supra. 

6 Timaeus 35 a 2-3 as interpreted in 1014 d supra (see 
page 187, notes a and d). 

See 1014 d-e supra with note /there. 

d Cf. Plato, Phaedrus 245 c 5—246 a 2 and Laws 896 a 5- 
b 3 (see supra 1013 c with note b and 1013 f with note a) ; 
and for the argument that follows here cf. Galen, Com- 
pendium Thnaei Platonis iv b (pp. 43, 7-44, 13 [Kraus- 



Plato calls matter mother and nurse, what he calls 
the cause of evil is the motion that moves matter and 
becomes divisible in the case of bodies, 6 the dis- 
orderly and irrational but not inanimate motion, 
which in the Laws, as has been said, c he called soul 
contrary and adverse to the one that is beneficent. 
For soul is cause and principle of motion/* but 
intelligence of order and consonance in motion e ; and 
the fact is that god did not arouse matter from torpor f 
but put a stop to its being disturbed by the mindless 
cause g and did not impart to nature the origins of 
change and of modifications but from her, who was 
involved in modifications of every kind and in dis- 
orderly changes, 71 removed the vast indefinitude and 
jangle, using as tools concord and proportion and 
number,* the function of which is not by change and 
motion to impart to things the modifications of 

Walzer]) and Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum i, p. 382, 2-12 

c For the relation of rd^is in motion to vovs and the lack 
of it to avoid cf. Plato, Laws 898 a 8-b 8. The distinction 
between d-n-Xws kivtjgis and Ktvrjcns ev rd^et is drawn in Plat. 
Quaest. 1007 d supra. 

f Cf. 1015 a supra (dpyov) with note 6 there ; and for what 
follows see 1014 n-c supra and Plat. Quaest. 1003 a with notes. 

See 1014 c supra (rrjv 8e rapax^y] Kai dvorjrov) and 1016 c 
infra (ipvxyv rr)v . . . ir\T)\jL\i.z\GiS irdvra /cat draKrcos Kivovoav). 

h Cf. Plato, Timaeus 52 d 4^-e 1 {rr)v be 817 ycveaews TLdr/vrjv 
. . . ocra aAAa . . . 7rddrj . . . rrdaxovcrav 7ravrooa7rr)v fj,€v loeiv 
</>cuWcr0ai . . .) with 1024 c infra (yeveaiv . . . tt)v cv /xcra- 
floXais Kai KLinjoeaiv ovoiav) ; Quaest. Conviv. 720 c (eV yeveoct 

KGU fl€TaTp07Tfj Kdl TtdBtOl 7TaVToh<17Tols • • •)• 

1 Cf. Quaest. Conviv. 720 b (ifiovXeT ovv firjotv . . . inroXnTclv 
. . . doptarov dXXd KOop,r]aai Xoyip Kai fierpa) Kai dpidfiaj rr)v <f>vot.v 
. . .) ; and see 1013 c supra with the passages referred to in 
page 175, note c, especially 1029 d-e and 1030 c in chap. 33 



(1015) *npdyp,aaiv aAAd /xaAAov a7r\avfj /cat oracrt/za /cat 
rots /card ravra 1 waavrajs exovcnv o/zota 7rotav. oj 
jit€V ow StdVota toiolvtt) Kara ye rrjv eprjv 86£av 
rod HAdrcDVOS. 

8. 'A7t68€l£is 8e 7Tpd)Trj fxev rj rfjs AeyopLevrjs /cat 
SoKovarjs avrov npos eavTov aovp<f>ojvias /cat Sta- 
1016 (f)Opds Averts. ov8e yap ao(f>tar7J KpcuTraAajvTL, rro- 
Qev ye 8rj HAdrcovi, rotaimjv dv tis dvadetrj rrepl 
ovs eoTTOvbaKei pdAioTa tojv Aoyojv rapax^v /cat 
dvajpLaAlav a>are rrjv avrrjv (f>voiv opiov /cat dyevq- 
tov 2 dnocfralveiv 3 /cat yevopevrjv, dyevrjTOv* pev ev 
QaiSpcp rrjv ^vxh v * v ^e Tt/xata) yevopevr\v? rj 
jxev ovv ev Oat'S/oa* StaAc/cros 1 dAtyov 8elv aVaat 
Stct aTOfJLCLTos ear i, rep dyevqTO) 6 to dvwAedpov Tip 1 
S' avTOKivriTcp inoTOvpevt) to dyevrjTOv 8 avTrjs' ev 
8e Ttttata) " ttjv 8e 9 ifivx^v^ (f>r]otv " oi>x a>? vuv 
voTepav eirixeipovpev Aeyeiv ovtcos eprjxavrjoaTo 
/cat 6 Beos veojTepav — ov yap dv dpxecrOac Trpeofiv- 
B Tepov vtto veojTepov ovvep^ag 10 etacrev — aAAa ttcos 11 

1 Kara ro avro -r. 2 aydwrjTOv -f, m, r. 

3 a7TO(f>alv€L -r. 

4 ayevvqrov -f, m, r. 

5 Wyttenbach ; yivofitvrjv -mss. (ytyvop.€vr]v -r). 

6 ayewyrw -f, m, r. 

7 to -u. 

8 ayivvr\rov -f, m, r. 

9 U -omitted by B ; U hv k -Plato (Timaeus 34 it 10). 

10 Stephanus from Timaeus 34 c 2; gwepgas -f, m, r ; 
crvvclpjjcv -e (sic) ; ovvetpgtv -u ; ow€ip( . . . vac. 3 -E, vac. 
2 -B ; (Tuvap . . . vac. 3 -Escor. 72 ; vvvrjpgev -Aldine. 

11 aAAd 7to>s -E, B, e, u, Escor. 72. 

a For this collocation see supra Plat. Quaest. 1002 d, 
note b. 

b See supra 1014 a, note g. 

c Cf. Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum ii, p. 119, 29-30 



diversity and difference a but rather to make them 
inerrant and stable and similar to the entities that 
are invariably identical. Such, then, in my opinion 
is Plato's meaning. 

8. A first proof of it is that it resolves what is 
called and seems to be his inconsistency and self- 
contradiction. h For one would not attribute even to 
a drunken sophist and it is nonsense then to attribute 
to Plato in regard to the doctrines about which he 
had been most seriously concerned such confusion 
and capriciousness as to declare of the same entity 
both that it is unsubject to generation and that it 
did come to be, in the Pkaedrus that the soul is 
unsubject to generation and in the Timaeus that it 
came to be. c Now, almost everyone has at the tip of 
his tongue the discourse in the Pkaedrus d confirming 
the soul's indestructibility by the fact that it is not 
subject to generation and its not being subject to 
generation by the fact that it is self-moved ; but in 
the Timaeus 6 he says: " The soul, however, now 
later in the account that we are attempting, was not 
thus junior also in god's devising — for he would not 
have permitted the senior of those that he had 
coupled to be ruled by the junior — , but we, as we 

(I)iehl); Chalcidius, Platonis Timaeus, pp. 91, 9-12 and 
92, 3-11 (\Vrobel) = pp. 76, 10-12 and 77, 13-20 (Waszink). 

d Pkaedrus 245 c 5 — 246 a 2. With Plutarch's summary 
of the argument here cf. Albinus, Epitome xxv, 4 (p. 121, 
3-6 [Louis] = p. 178, 12-15 [Hermann]); Hermias, In Platonis 
Phaedrum, p. 115, 1-3 (Couvreur) ; and Macrobius, In 
S omnium Scipionis n, xiii, 12. 

* Timaeus 34 b 10 — 35 a 1. See 1013 f supra and the 
notes there ; and observe that Plutarch in his quotation 
here stops short of Ik tcovSc . . ., which modifies crweaTrjaaro 
in Timaeus 35 a 1. 



(1016) rjfi€cs 7roXv fierexovres 1 rod TrpooTvxovTOs re 2 /cat 
€iK7J ravrrj 7777 /cat Xeyofiev, 6 he /cat yeveaei /cat 
dperfj Trporepav* (/cat TrpeofivTepavY rr)i> 5 ^JVXV V 
aai/xaTOs* cos* heoTroriv /cat ap^ovaav dp^o\ievov 
avvearvjuaro ." /cat rraAtv, elrTcov cbs " auT)] ev 
iavTjj orp€(fjop,€vri Qeiav apxfy rjp^aro airavorov 
/cat e\±cf)povos fiiov," " to /Ltev S^ aa>ua " cprjaiv 
il oparov ovpavov* yeyovev, avTrf S' ddpaTos ftev 8 
Xoytafjiov he fxerexovaa /cat appLovlas fax*} T ^ )v 
vorfTcov dec t' ovtcdv vno tov dpioTov dptaTrj yevo- 
jjLevrj tcdv yewrjdevTCDv" 9 ivravua yap tov p,ev 
deov dpioTov zIttojv tcov del ovtcdv ttjv he i/jvx'rjv 
C dpiaTTjv tcov yevvrfievTCOv , 10 oatfieaTaTTj TavTrj tjj 
hiacpopa /cat dvTcdeoet, to dihiov avTrjs /cat to 
dyevrfTov 11 d<f>rjpr}Tcu. 

9. Tt's ovv tovtcov e7Tav6p6coais eTepa ttXtjv rjs 
olvtos hlhcoac Tot? Se^ea^at poyXofievois ; dyevrj- 
tov 12 fiev yap aTro<f>aLvei ^niyrfv -rqv irpo ttjs Koofxov 
yeveoecos TrXrjpifjieXco^ TrdvTa /cat aVd/CTOJS' Kivovoav 

1 p,€T€xovT€s 7ro\v -r. 2 Te -omitted by r. 

8 Trporepov -r. 

4 <. . .> added by Turnebus from Timaeus 34 c 4-5 (r/. 
1013 f supra). 

5 T17V -not in Timaeus 34 c 5. 

6 oparov tov ovpavov -f, m, r. 

7 avrr) -B. Miiller from Timaeus 36 e 6 ; avrrj -mss. 
(avTT) -u). 

8 auri7 /zev dooaros" -f, m, r ; avnr) fxkv doparos ftfY -Escor. 72. 

9 ycvrftivTw -E, B, u, Escor. 72. 

10 f, m ; ysvvqdev -r (at end of line) ; yev-qQivroiv -E, B, e, u, 
Escor. 72. 

11 aytvvqrov -f, m, r. 12 aytwrjTov -f, m, r. 

a Timaeus 36 e 3-4. Plutarch stops short of 77-00? tov 
ovynravra xpovov which in the Timaeus follows €p.<j>povos filov. 
6 Timaeus 36 e 5—37 a 2. 



partake largely of the casual and random, express 
ourselves in this way too, whereas he constructed the 
soul prior <and senior) to body in generation and 
excellence to be mistress and ruler of it as her 
subject." And again, after having said a that " her- 
self revolving within herself she made a divine 
beginning of ceaseless and rational life," he says b : 
" So the body of heaven has come to be visible ; but 
soul herself, invisible but participant in reason and 
concord, is become best of the things generated by 
the best of intelligible and everlasting beings." d 
For here he has called god best of everlasting beings 
but the soul best of the things generated, and by 
this most manifest distinction and opposition he has 
removed from her the character of being everlasting 
and ungenerated. 

9. What way of adjusting these statements e is 
there, then, other than what he provides himself for 
those who will accept it ? For unsubject to genera- 
tion is said of the soul that before the generation of 
the universe keeps all things in disorderly and 
jangling motion/ but come to be and so subject to 

c See supra 1014 e and note h there. 

d What follows shows that Plutarch construed the passage 
in this way, the second of the three ways considered by 
Proclus {In Platonis Timaeum ii, p. 294, 1-18 [Diehl]) ; see 
also Plat, Quaes t. 1002 b (6 yap deos iv rots vo-qrols) with 
note ,d on page 42. 

e Seel014 a, note g supra on ovvoiKtiojv. 

f Cf KLvovfJi€vov 7rXr]fjLiieXa)s teal dra/cro)? in Timaeus 80 a 
3-5 (paraphrased in 1016 d infra), the cause of which motion 
according to Plutarch must have been precosmic soul (see 
1015 e supra with notes d and g there ; cf Proclus, In 
Platonis Timaeum i, p. 382, 3-4 and p. 391, 8-12 [Diehl] 
and Chalcidius, Platonis Timaeus, pp. 326, 15-17 and 328, 
16-20 [Wrobel] = pp. 299, 16-18 and 302, 3-6 [Waszink]). 



(1016) ytvofjLevrjv 1 Se Kal yevrjTTjv 2 ndXw rjv 6 Oeos zk re 
ravTTjs Kal rfjs jJiovlpiov re Kal aplcrrrjs ovoias €K€i- 
vrjs €jjL<f)pova* Kal rerayfiivriv drrepyaodpLevos Kal 4, 
Kaddrrzp etSos Kal ra> aladrjrtKa) to voepov Kal rat 
KLvrjTiKcp to reraypLevov d<f>' avrov 5 7rapaox<l>v rjy€- 
D fiova rod iravros iyKarearrjaev. ovtojs yap Kal to 
ooj/ia tou kogjjlov 7Tjj fiev dyivryrov arro^aivei Trfj 
Se yevrjrov** orav fxev yap etrrrj rrdv oaov rjv oparov 
ovx r)ovyiav dyov dAAct Kivovfievov araKrcos rov 
Oeov irapaXa^ovra otaKocrfjLelv Kal 7rd\iv rd T€a- 
aapa yevrj, irvp Kal vSoop Kal yrjv Kal depa> rrplv r)' 
to rrav an avrtov 8 SiaKOcrpLrjOev yeveodac, oeiopiov 
ifjL7TOi€LV 9 rfj iiXrj Kal 10 vtt* iKelvrjs Tivdaoeodai ota 
TTjv dvwfxaXlav, ovra ttov rroiel Kal V7TOKeifi€va rd 

1 yiyvo\Livi)v -r. 2 ycvvrjTTjv -f, m, r. 

3 €fi<f>povov -r. 

4 Kal -omitted by B and deleted by Diibner. 

5 B. Muller (" de suo " -Turnebus ; " ex se " -Diibner) ; 
pltt* avrov -mss. 

6 ayivvrjrov . . . yevv-qrov -f, m, r. 

7 nplv Kal -Timaeus 53 a 7. 

8 air' at5ra>v -H. C. (cf. De Defectu Orac. 430 d [eV avrcbv 
-mss.] and Babbitt ad loc. [L.C.L. v, p. 458, n. 5]) ; vn* 
avrtov -mss. ; i£ avrwv -Timaeus 53 a 7. 

9 Stephanus ; efnroiovv -mss. 
10 Kal -omitted by E. 

a Cf. yevofjLtvr) rdv ycvvrjdevrajv (Timaeus 37 a 1-2) quoted 
in 1016 b supra ; but /cat ytvyrqv is Plutarch's own expli- 
cation, probably suggested by Timaeus 28 c 1-2 cited in 
1016 E infra (yiyvo^va Kal yevrjrd). 

6 See 1013 f, note 6 supra, 

c i.e. the indivisible being of Timaeus 35 a 1-2 ; see 
1024 a infra : -n}? re Kptlrrovos ovoias Kal dfiepicrrov . . . vcpl 
rrjv del fievovoav . . . ovaiav. . . . For the connotation of Zk tc 



generation is said on the other hand of soul that 
god installed as chief of the sum of things b when out 
of this soul here and that abiding and most excellent 
being yonder e he had produced a rational and orderly 
one and from himself d had provided intellectuality 
and orderliness as form e for her perceptivity and 
motivity. For thus it is that the body of the universe 
too is said in one context to be ungenerated and in 
another to be subject to generation^ : when Plato 
says that g everything visible, being not at rest but 
in disorderly motion, was taken over by god who 
arranges it and says again that h the four kinds, fire 
and water and earth and air, before the sum of 
things has come to be arranged from them cause 
matter ' to be agitated and are shaken by it because 
of the irregularity, he posits bodies as existing, no 

TavTTjs /cat • . . €K€lvt)s see infra 1023 F (. . . Sof aariKrjv ravr-qv 
. . . vorjTLKTJs iiceunjs) and 1024 c (StaotSouo-ay ivravOa ras e/cctflev 
tUovas) ; and for fiovtfios cf. 1024 c-d infra and Adv. Colotem 
1116 b with Plato, Timaeus 29 b 5-7 and 49 e 3-4. 

d See Plat. Quaest. 1001 c (. . . koX oV avrov kcli i( avrov 
ycyovcv) with note b there. 

• See 1013 c supra (. . . ttjv ovalav avrrjs vttok€lh€vt)v /cat 
hexotitvnv to KaAAiarov €*8o$ . . .) and Proclus, In Platonis 
Timaeum ii, pp. 153, 28-154, 1 (Diehl) ; cf. also Plotinus. 
Enn. ii, iv, 3, lines 4-6 and in, ix, 5, line 3. 

' Cf. Apuleius, De Platone i, 8 (p. 91, 12-13 [Thomas]) ; 
Xumenius (p. 91, 9-17 [Leemans]) in Chalcidius, Platonis 
Timaeus, p. 324, 4-11 (Wrobel) = p. 297, 10-16 (Waszink) ; 
Hippolytus, Refutatio i, 19, 4 (p. 20, 2-6 [Wendland]). 

9 Timaeus 30 a 3-5. For the stress laid on this passage by 
Plutarch and Atticus cf. Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum i, 
p. 381, 26-28 (Diehl). 

h Timaeus 52 e 3-5 and 53 a 2-7 ; cf. Plutarch, De Defectu 
Orac. 430 c-d (ja orot^cta aeiovra ttjv vXrjv . . .). 

* For the insertion of this term see supra 1013 c, note c 
on page 173. 



(1016) ewfiara npo tt\s rod Koofiov yeveaecos' orav 8e 
7rdAw Aeyrj rfjs fcvxVS veayrepov yeyovevai to aojfjLa 
/cat tov Koafxov €ivai yevqrov 1 on oparos kcll 


jxeva Kal yevrjra 2 i(f)dvrj, ttolvtI SrjAov ojs yeveow 

T7] <f)VO€l TOV 0(J)jiaTOS aTToStSiOOlV. dAAd TToXXoV 

Set TavavTLOL Aeyeiv Kal Sta^epeodac 7Tpds clvtov* 
ovtcds €K<f>avcos^ ev tols fjLeyloTOLS. oi) yap d>oav- 
to)s ovSe TavTO oxD/za yiyveodai re cj>rjoiv vtto tov 
Oeov Kal elvai rrplv rf yeveoOai' rairra yap avTiKpvs 
(frappLaKOJVTOS ioTiv. dXXa tl Sec voeiv* Kal ttjv 7 
yeveoiv avTOS SiSacr/cet. "to jxev yap 6 rrpo tov- 
tov " 9 </>r]al " TavTa 7ravra 10 ef^ev aAoyoJs Kal a/xe- 
Tpa>s' ot€ S' ^TreyeipelTO KOopLtZodai to ttolv, rrvp 
TTptoTOV Kal vSojp Kal yrjv Kal depa, i^n? fiev 
l^ovra 11 dVra avTtov, 12 TravTarraoi p<r)v lz StaKeifxeva 

1 yewr^rov -f, m, r. 

2 yevvriTa -f, m, r (A 1 , F, P in Timaeus 28 c 2). 

3 m, Aldine ; avrov -all other mss. (avrov avrov -u). 

4 d(j>avcjs -m, r. 

5 7j -omitted by f, m, r, Escor. 72. 

8 voetv -omitted by f, m, r (added in margin of f and m). 

7 Kal n)v -omitted by Aldine, Basiliensis ; Kal rav-rqv 
rrjv or Kal ro ytvo^evov Kal rv\v -B. Miiller ; Kal riva (?) 

8 to ju,€v brj -Timaeus 53 a 8. 

9 touVou -Bernardakis from Timaeus 53 a 8 ; tou -mss. 

10 -navra ravr -Timaeus 53 A 8. 

11 u, f, r ; €\ov to. -E, B, e, m, Escor. 72. 

12 arra avrcov -Diibner (implied by Xylander's version) 
from Timaeus 53 b 2 (exovra avrcov arra [avra -A, F, Y ; 
Simplicius, Phys., p. 228, 6]) ; avra avrw -mss. 



doubt, and ready to hand a before the generation of 
the universe ; but, when again he says that b body 
has come to be junior to soul and that c the universe 
is subject to generation because it is visible and 
tangible and has body and such things had been 
shown to be in process of becoming and subject to 
generation, it is clear to everyone that he attributes 
a genesis to the nature of body.** Nevertheless, he 
is far from contradicting himself and being so 
manifestly at odds with himself in matters of the 
greatest moment, for it is not in the same way and 
not the same body that he says is brought into being 
by god and exists before it came to be ; it takes a 
downright sot e for that, whereas he himself explains 
the sense in which the genesis too must be under- 
stood. " For before this," he says/ " all these were 
without ratio or measure ; and, when it was under- 
taken to reduce the sum of things to order, fire first 
and water and earth and air, while having some 
traces of themselves, were nevertheless in the very 
condition that is likely to be the state of everything 

° See 1014 B supra : ov y€vo\iivr\v dXXd vnoK€Lfi€vr)v del ra> 
Srjfiiovpya). . . . 

b Timaeus 34 b 10 — 35 a 1 ; see supra 1016 a-b with 
note e on page 199. 

c Timaeus 28 b 7-c 2. 

d See against this conclusion Proclus, In Platonis Ti- 
maeum i, pp. 283, 27-285, 6 and ii, pp. 117, 3-119, 10 (Diehl) 
on Timaeus 28 b 7-c 2 and 34 c 4—35 a 1 respectively. 

e Cf. ao<f>iarrj KpaiiraXcovTi (1016 A supra) and et yap ov 
Kpai7ra\u>vT€s ovoc <t>apfiaKu>vT€s . . . (Adv. Colotem 1123 f). 

/ Timaeus 53 a 8-b 5. 

13 Diibner (implied by Xylander's version) from Timaeus 
53 b 3 (fir)v -F, Y ; yc firjv -A ; /zcv -Simplicius, Phys., 
p. 228, 7) ; Travrdrraaiv fy -mss. 



(1016) * , x „ „ „ , „ r\ t ft 

•p cooTrep eiKos £X CLV a7Tav otglv airfj TWOS V€OS, ovrco 
8r/ tot€ 7T€<f>VKOTa tolvtcl upcoTOV otecr^Tj/xaTtcraTo 
etOW /cat apwfiois, en oe irporepov, eiircov cos 
ov pads k'pyov 2 rjv dvaXoyias dXXd Sveiv to ow- 
S^crat arepeov ovra /cat fidOos k\ovTcx rov rod 


depa re 6 Beds ev peocp 6 els ovveSrjcre /cat oruvearrj- 

aaro top' ovpavov, e/c T6 ot) tovtcov cprjot toi- 

1017 outojv /cat tov dpiOfjidv rerrdpcov to tow KOGfxov 

ucofxa iyewrjdrf St' dvaAoytas ofAoXoyfjaav, <f>iXLav 

66v dXvTOV V7TO TCOV ClXXcOV* 7tXt)V VTTO TOV OVv8tj- 

oavros yeveodai," aa^earara 8i8doKcov cos ov-yl 
owiacltos dnXcos ov8 9 oyKOV /cat vXr^s dXXd ovp- 
fi€Tpias TTepl ooj/xa 6 /cat KaXXovs /cat 7 opoioTrjTOs 
r\v 6 9eos TraTrjp /cat 8rfpiovpyos . raura 8 8rj Set 9 

1 €tScat re /cat -A in Thnaeus 53 b 5. 

2 epyov -e, u 1 (corrected by u 2 ). 

3 S17 <f>r)<7L tovtwv -r. 

4 kytvrfif) -E, B, 11 1 (corrected by u 2 ). 

5 u7to tou aAAou -A and P in Thnaeus 32 c 3. 

6 7rept CTcD/xa -omitted by r. 

7 /cat -omitted by B, u 1 (added superscript by u 2 ). 

8 ravra -Hubert (dub., cf. " quod idem . . ." -Turnebus). 
• 017 -omitted by f, m, r ; Set -omitted by Escor. 72, 

Aldine, Basiliensis. 

a Cf. Plutarch, Be Facie 926 f (L.C.L. xii, p. 84, note 6) ; 
but there the absence of god is said to mean absence of 



whenever god is absent from it, a and so, this being 
then their natural state, god first gave them definite 
shape with figures and numbers." Still earlier, after 
saying that b it took not one proportion but two to 
bind together the mass of the sum of things since it 
is a solid and has depth and after explaining that c 
god put water and air between fire and earth and so 
bound together and constructed the heaven, d he 
says e : " from these, being such in kind and four in 
number, was the body of the universe engendered 
consentient through proportion, and from these it 
acquired amity so that banded in union with itself it 
came to be indissoluble by others than by him who 
had bound it together." So he most manifestly 
teaches that god was father and artificer not of body 
in the absolute sense/ that is to say not of mass and 
matter, but of symmetry in body and of beauty and 
similarity. 17 This, then, is what one must suppose in 

vovs kcll i/jvxy* whereas here it is assumed to be absence of 
vovs only with faxy «ad y iavrrfv (see 1014 e, note g supra), 
i.e. irrational soul, present and moving the precosmic chaos 
(see supra 1016 c with note /there and Plat. Quaest. 1003 
a, note h). 

b Timaeus 32 a 7-b 3. 

c Timaeus 32 b 3-7. 

d In fact Plato says avv€or-r]oaro ovpavov oparov Kal arrrov 
(Timaeus 32 b 7-8; cf. 31 b 4-8 ana 36 e 5-6 [quoted in 
1016 B supra]), although in Timaeus 30 a 3-5 (see 1016 n 
supra) the supposed precosmic chaos had been called oparov 
and Plutarch asserts that the tangibility of body was not 
created by the demiurge (1014 c supra with note d there). 

e Timaeus 32 b 8-c 4. 

f See supra pages 183, note d and 185, note c; and with 
aa>fj,aTos olttXcjs cf. a7rAa>s tpvxyv in 1024 a infra. 

9 Cf. 1014 e supra (. . . kolXXovs Sc Kal jj.op<f>r}s Kal oxyjfiaTtov 
IJL€Tpi6Tr)Tos ivhecbs clx^v) and Plato, Timaeus 53 b 5-6 and 
69 b 2-5. 



(1017) oiavotlvQai /cat irepl ifjvxf]S> u>s Tqv jxev ov0 y W 
rod Ocov yevo/jievrjv ovre kog/jlov iJjv^v ovaav dXXd 
riva (fravTacrTiKrjs 1 /cat 8o£aoTLKfjs dXoyov Se /cat 
gltolktov (fropas /cat opiirjs Svvafxiv avTOKtvrjTov /cat 
B deiKivrjTOV rrjv S' 2 avros 6 6eos Stap/xoaa/xevos 3 
rots' TTpoGTjKovGiv dpiOfJLOis /cat Xoyocs iyKarecFTr}- 
aev riyepbova rod Koa/xov yeyovoros yevrjrrjv* ovaav. 
10. "Ort 8e Trepl tovtojv oievoelro ravra /cat ov 
deajptas ev€/ca rov re koojjlov [firjY yevofievov /cat 
rrjs fcvxVS ojjloicds* VTreriOero avoraoiv /cat yeveaiv 1 

€K€LVO 77/00? TToXXoLS T€KjJLTjpl6v eWt \X€ya % TO TTjV 

/lev iftvxV v vit avrov /cat dyevqrov 9 (Lcnrep etprfraL 

1 <j>av7 aoTLK-qv -r. 

2 7jv &r) -B ; rjv Se -e 1 (rjv remade to rty by e 2 ). 

3 6 Otos avros BtapfAoadfAeyos -B ; avros 6 h-qiiiovpy^adfie^ 
vos m T. 

4 y€vvr]rr)v -f, ni, r. 


5 fxrj -omitted by B, f, m, r ; ^ -E ; firj -e, u ; fi-q -Escor. 


6 mss. ; ofiws -Wyttenbach (with /rq yevofxdvov supra). 

7 koI ydvccnv -omitted by r. 

8 fidya -H. C. (cf. Moralia 91 d, 624 f, 1101 e) ; /icra -e, 

Escor. 72; pera -u ; € Vrt . . . vac. 5 -E ; vac. 6 - B ... to ; 
eWt to -f, m, r, Aldine. 

9 dydvvrjTov -f, m, r (so also infra yzwr\ir\v and yevvrjTov 
aydwrjTov Se). 

° C/. Thevenaz (L'Jme du Monde, p. 22, note 92): 
" Dans tout ce passage (scil. chap. 9) Plutarque applique 
aussi a l'ame ce que Platon ne disait que du corps." Plutarch 
in fact here abandons the literal interpretation that he pro- 
fesses to maintain, for the Timaeus speaks not of a precosmic 
soul regulated or organized by the demiurge but of soul pro- 
duced by him " substance " and all (cf. Proclus, In Platonis 
Timaeum i, p. 383, 25-31 and ii, p. 119, 10-24 [Diehl] with 
insistence upon the cV tcuvoV . . ., omitted by Plutarch in 


the case of soul also, a that, whereas the one b neither 
was brought into being by god nor is the soul of the 
universe c but is a certain self-moved and so per- 
petually activated potency d of imaginative and 
opinionative but irrational and disorderly transport 
and impulse, e the other was regulated by god him- 
self with the appropriate numbers and ratios f and 
then being generated was installed by him as chiefs' 
of the universe that had come to be. 

10. That this is what he really thought about these 
matters and that he was not for the sake of examina- 
tion supposing in like manner a composition and 
generation of the soul and of the universe which has 
come to be, 71 of this a strong indication in addition to 
many is the notorious fact that, while, as has been 
said,* he speaks of the soul both as ungenerated and 

his quotation of Timaeus 34 b 10 — 35 a 1 [see supra page 199, 
note e\). 

b See 1016 c supra : a.yivqrov fiev . . . i/fvx^v ttjv rrpo rrjs 

KOGflOV y€V€O€C0S . . . y€VOfJL€VTjV 0€ . . . 7JV 6 0€OS. . . • 

c Contrast 1024 a infra : vvv o\>x clttXcos 4 )v XV v g^^ Koayiov 
ipvxyv- ... 

d For hvvafiiv see 1015 b supra (-rqv . . . Tplr^v apxqv /cat 
SvvafiLv) ; for the implication of /cat cf. Hermias, In Platonis 
Phaedrum, p. 103, 20-21 (with p. 104, 7-8) and p. 112, 33-34 
(Couvreur) and see supra 1016 a, note d, 

6 See 1024 a infra (ttjv So^aaTLKrjv /cat <f>avra(JTiKi}v . . . 
klvtjglv . . .) and supra 1014 c, note e. 

1 See supra page 175, note c. 

9 See supra 1013 r, note 6. 

h See supra 1013 a (chap. 3 init.). 

* 1016 a supra (. . . 6fiov /cat ayiirqrov . . . /cat yevofievjjv, 
dyevrjTOV /xev iv OatSpaj rrjv i/jvxrjv iv o€ TtjLtato; ycvofiivrjv) . 
Resolved by Plutarch in his fashion in 1016 c supra (chap. 9 
init.), this was used by Proclus (In Platonis Timaeum i, 
p. 287, 18-23 [Diehl]) as evidence that Plato in the Timaeus 
could call the universe yevrjTov also though holding it to be 
ayivrjTOV Kara xpovov. 



(1017) /cat yevrjrrjv XeyeaOai rov Se kog/jlov del fiev yeyo- 
vora Kal yzvrprbv dyivryvov Se firjSeTrore (jlt)8* di- 
oiov. Ta fX€V oSv ev Tt/xata) ri Set rrpo<j>€.peiv; 1 
SXov yap Kal rrav to avyypa\i\ia ire pi koo\iov yeve- 
oea)s a\pi reXovs drr* dpx^js 2 eari. rcov S' aAAcov 
C iv fiev 'ArXavTLKo) TTpoaevxofJLZvos 6 Tij^aios 1 dvo- 
/za£ec rov rrdXai [lev epyco yeyovora vvv Se Xoycp 2 
Beov, £v YIoXltiko) Se 6 Ylappbevioeios ^ivos tov 
KOGfiov vtto tov Oeov ovvTedevTa (f>7]ol ttoXXlov dya- 
6a>v /JL€TaXap€LV , el Se rt <f)Xavpov eortv rj .^aXeTrov, 
€K ttjs irporepas k'^eojs dvappboorov Kal dXoyov ovfi- 
jjLefjLLyfjievov €X €LV ' * v °* r V IIoAiTeta Trepl tov 
dpidfJLov, ov ydfjiov eviot koXovolv, 6 Sco/cpa- 
t^s 1 dpxofievos Xiyeiv ' l ean Se' ' ' <f)7)ai ' ' Oeioj 

fl€V y€V7]TCO i TT€pio8oS 7JV 5 dpiOfJiOS TT€ptXa[JL^dv€L 

1 B (rrpo -E in margin) ; npoa^epciv -all other mss. 

2 an* apxys &XP L TeXovs -B. 

3 Xoyois -Plato, Critias 106 a 4. 

4 y€wr)ra> -f, m, r, Escor. 72, Plato (Republic 546 b 3). 

6 rj -u. 

a Contrast Joannes Lydus, Be Mensibus iii, 3 (p. 38, 
13-16 [Wuensch]). What Plutarch here states as a fact 
(cf. Philoponus, Be Aeternitate Mundi vi, 24 [pp. 199, 26- 
200, 3, Rabe]), taking it to be compatible with his previous 
assertion that Plato ro aa>p.a rov koojxov 7777 p.kv ayzvrjrov 
arro<t>aiv€i. rrfj 8c yevrjrov (1016 d supra with note / there), 
would have been denied by those who read Timaeus 27 c 5 
in the way reported and rejected by Proclus (In Platonis 
Timaeum i, p. 219, 13-18 [Diehl]) ; and it would be untrue 
also if Timaeus 40 b 5 in the version of A, adopted by modern 
editors, were surely right, but the dlhia there used of the 
" fixed stars " was not in the texts read by Cicero, Proclus, 
and Chalcidius and so may not have been in that known to 

b Critias 106 a 3-4 : ra> be irpiv p.kv rrdXai 7tot' epyat vvv 


as generated, he always speaks of the universe as 
having come to be and as generated and never as 
ungenerated or everlasting. As to the Timaeus, 
what need to cite passages in it ? For the whole 
work in its entirety from beginning to end is about 
the generation of the universe. Among his other 
writings, however, in the Account of Atlantis Timaeus 
invokes by name the god that in fact of old but now 
in word has come to be, 6 and in the Politicus the 
Parmenidean Stranger says c that the universe con- 
structed by god partook of much good and that 
anything defective or troublesome in it is an in- 
gredient retained from its prior discordant and ir- 
rational state ; and in the Republic Socrates, when 
he begins to speak about the number that some call 
Nuptial,** says : "A divine object of generation has 
a period that is comprised by a perfect number," e 

Se Xoyots dpri dcco yeyovori 7rpocreuYo/zat (cf. P. Frutiger, Les 
Mythes de Platon, p. 209, n. 1 and p. 195, n. 2 on Timaeus 
20 d 7 and 26 e 4-5). Plutarch's transposition of the words 
tends to diminish their ambiguity and so may not have been 

c Cf. Politicus 269 d 8-9 and 273 b 4-d 1 (see 1015 c-d 
supra [chap. 7 init.]). 

d Republic 546 b 3-d 3. With Plutarch's expression here 
cf. Nicomachus, Arithmetica Introductio n, xxiv, 11 (p. 131, 
8-9 [Hoche]) : Kara rov rov Acyofjievov ydfiov roirov iv rfj 
rioAircta. . . . Iamblichus refers to the passage as rov ev rfj 
HXarcuvos TToXircia yafjuKov dpL0fx6v (In Nicomachi Arith- 
meticam Introduciionem, p. 82, 20-21 [Pistelli]), and Plutarch 
himself in De Iside 373 f speaks of ro ya/iijXiov Sidypafifia 
there formulated. 

• Republic 546 b 3-4. In 1018 c infra Plutarch says that 
six is rekeios and is called ydfios but does not suggest any 
connexion between that and this sentence of Plato's, the 
dpLdjjLos reXaos of which is not the " nuptial number " any- 
way but is distinguished from it. 


(1017) reXeios" ovk dXXo koXojv Oclov yevqrov 1 rj rov 


1022 E 21 . ('AAA' ov8e rrepl rov koojiov /cat rrjs foxi^ 
ofioiwsy iv(rav8a Xeyei to dfiepLorov Kal del) 2 
Kara ravrd k'xpv* <*>$ f^opcprjv Kal elSos, to 8e Trepl 
rd oa)jJLara* ytyvo/xevov \xzpior6v cos vrro8o-)(r}v Kal 
vXrjv, to 8e pZypLa kolvov ei; dpL<f>olv arroTeTcAecr/xe- 
vov. 5 rj yikv ovv dpLepioros ova la Kal del Kara 
ravrd Kal woavrojs eypvoa fir) fiLKporrjTL KaOdrrep 
rd eXa^tora rcov ocopbdrcov voeiodco tfievyovoa rov 

1 yewrjrov -f, m, r, Escor. 72. 

2 <. . .> €v<. . .> -supplied by H. C. ; koo/xov. . . . vac. 4 
-E ; vac. 8 -B . . . followed by be rj ra>v rpaZv (chap. 11 [1017 
c] infra) through dprlcov Kal rr (chap. 20 [1022 e] infra) . . . 
vac. 4-1/2 lines -E ; vac. 2-1/2 lines -B . . . followed by 
Kara ra avra (chap. 21 [1022 e] here) through ra>v bvelv 
bevrepa (chap. 30 [1027 f] infra) followed immediately by 
irepirrcov. 7Tp> yap (chap. 30 b [1027 f] infra) to the end -E, 
B ; KoapLov . . . vac. 5 -f , m ; vac. 3 -r . . . lv . . . vac. 4 . . . 
followed by Be 77 rwv rptcuv through apriov Kal im . . . vac. 
14 -f ; vac. 13 -m, r . . . followed by /caret ret avra. through 
rcov bvoiv. bevrepa (bevrepa be -f ) rojv nepirrcov. ttjv yap -f, 

m, r ; Koopuov. evOa (iv . . . vac. 2 -Escor. 72) be rj rGiv rpidv 

through aprioiV Kal em Kara, (/caret -Escor. 72 ; eVi'/cara -u) ret 
aura through rcov bvolv bevrepirra>v {parcovne -Escor. 72 in 
margin) rrjv yap -e, u, Escor. 72 ; Kara ra avra . . . rcov bvelv 
bevrepa (chaps. 21-30) and be r) ra>v rpidv . . . dprtW /cat 
(chaps. 11-20) transposed by Maurommates (1848) and B. 
Miiller (1870 and 1873). 

3 B ; e%aw -all other mss. 

4 7T€pl awfia -f. 

6 arroreXeofxevov -e, u, f. 

a Cf. Proclus, In Platonis Hem Publicam ii, pp. 14, 8-15, 
20 and p. 30, 6-10 (Kroll) ; and In Platonis Timaeum i, 
p. 292, 6-9 (Diehl). 

b The supplements proposed by B. Miiller (1870 [p. 398] 



what he calls a divine object of generation being 
nothing other than the universe.* 1 

21. & (Nor in our passage c either does he with 
regard to the universe and the soul alike speak of 
what is indivisible and ever) invariable as shape or 
form, of what becomes divisible in the case of bodies 
as receptacle or matter, and of the mixture as having 
been produced from both in common. d Now, the 
indivisible and ever invariable and identical being is 
to be thought of as eluding division not because of 
minuteness as do the smallest of bodies, e for it is the 

and 1873 [p. 33]), which like the earlier one by Maurom- 
mates (1848 [p. 38]) introduce the name of Crantor, were 
criticized by H.-R. Schwyzer (Rhein. Mus., lxxxiv [1935], 
pp. 361-363) and by Thevenaz (VAme du Monde, pp. 61- 
62), who later (Rev. fitudes Grecques, lii [1939], pp. 358-366) 
gave in French paraphrase a supplement of his own, gratui- 
tously assuming on the basis of Be hide 373 e — 374 a that 
Plutarch here too had introduced the triangle supposedly 
used in the nuptial number and had confused the latter with 
the reXetos dpidfios just mentioned but correctly observing 
that chap. 21 must continue the theme introduced at the 
beginning of chap. 10 by ov . . . rod re koo^xov . . . ko.1 ttjs 

1pVX7JS V7T€Tld€TO OVOTdOLV KOI y€V€(7lV. 

c i.e. Timaeus 35 a 1-b 4 (1012 b-c supra) ; see vvv in 
1023 a infra. 

d For identification of the indivisible with shape or form 
and of the divisible with matter H.-R Schwyzer (Rhein. 
Mus. y lxxiv [1935], p. 363) cites " Timaeus Locrus " 94 a 
(vXav . . . T<iv Sc TTcpl tcl acopLara pLepiarav elp-ev . . .) and 97 E 
(apxal . . . cos /i€v v7TOK€LfA€vov a vXa cos §€ Xoyos poppas TO 
etBos)* to which add 95 e (. . . Kpdpia » . • I* T€ t&s afxeplarw 
lxop<f)ds Kal rds pLCptords ovalas, cos <v Kpdfia eV hvo rovrdcov 

e This does not imply that anyone had taken the " in- 
divisible being " of Timaeus 35 a to mean " minimal body M 
(though it is treated as quantitatively indivisible, i.e. as a 
spatial point, by Aristotle in his criticism of Timaeus 37 a 
[cf. Cherniss, Aristotle *s Criticism of Plato . . ., n. 316 on 



(1022) jxepiafMov' to ydp dirXovv /cat airaOh /cat Kadapov 1 
avrrjs /cat fiovoeiSes a/iepes eiprjrai /cat afiepiarov, 
w /cat rcov ovvdirojv /cat fiepLVTcbv /cat 8ia<f>epo- 
fievcov diia)aye7ro)9 Qiyovoa? iravei to 7rXr}0o$ /cat 
F KaOiGTYjcrw etV fttav 8ta ofJLOLOTrjros e£tv. ttjv Se 
rrepl rd awjiara ytyvofievrjv* fieptarrjp el {lev ns 
i8eXoi A /caAetv vXrjv (bs /cat viroK€ip,evriv €K€ivrj /cat 
fi€raXrj7TTiKrjv e/cetV^s* <j>voLv y oficovvfila ^pa^ei/os*, 
ou 8ia<f>lpei Trpos rov Xoyov ol 8e awfJLOLTiKrjv a£t- 
ovvres vXr)v avfifMLyvvaOai rfj dfJLepiora). 8ia[xap- 

1 Kadapov Kal dnaOes -B. 

2 Otyovaa -Diibner ; tf-qyoucra -B, u 1 ; BCyovoa -all other mss. 

3 Maurom mates ; ytvofidvyv -mss. 4 iddXei -B, u, r. 

p. 394 and p. 407]) but is a warning against the common 
association of dfi€pes and e'Aaxiorov (cf. Xenocrates, frag. 51 
[Heinze] ; Alexander, Metaph., p. 247, 22-24; Simplicius, 
Categ., p. 39, 12-16) and, as is indicated by Plat. Quaest. 
1002 c-d (see note b there), was probably suggested by such 
misleading expressions as rj dfidptoros ovoia . . . donv eis 
Ppa\v avvr)yiJL€vrj . . . (Plat. Quaest. 1001 d) : cf. the warning 
against taking indivisibly one to mean |y ws eXdxiorov (Da- 
mascius, Bub. et Sol., pp. 2, 24-3, 2 [Ruelle] = Speusippus, 
frag. 36 [Lang] and Anon, in Platonis Parmenidem i, 20- 
24=Rhein. Mus., xlvii [1892], p. 602 = P. Hadot, Porpkyre 
et Victorinus ii [Paris, 1968], p. 66). 

a Cf. the characteristics ascribed to the vovs of Anaxagoras 
by Plutarch (Pericles iv, 6 [154 c] ) and by Aristotle (Physics 
256 b 24-25 ; Be Anima 405 a 16-17, 405 b 19-21, 429 b 23- 
24) and by the latter to his own vovs ttoit)tik6s (Be Anima 
430 a 17-18) ; and for Plutarch himself see infra 1024 a 
(to yap vo€pov . . . drtadks . . .) and 1026 D (. . . Ik tc rijs Oelas 
Kal dnadovs • • •) and Be Facie 945 c-d (6 o€ vovs arraOrjs). 
In Plat. Quaest. 1002 C-D dirXovv Kal elXiKpivks Kal Kadapov 
dirdcrrjs ireporqros Kal Siacf>opas (~ fiovociSes here) characterizes 
the incorporeal and intelligible (as does dnades in Amatorius 
765 a, rd votjtcl . . . rijs daajfidrov Kal drradovs ovaias €1817), but 
Plutarch treats vovs itself as a vovrov (see note g on Plat. 
Quaest. 1002 c and note b on 1002 e supra). 



simplicity and impassivity and purity and uniformity 
of it a that is meant by its being without parts and 
indivisible, that with which when it somehow just 
touches b objects composite and divisible and differing 
it puts a stop to their multiplicity and reduces it to a 
state that is single through similarity. As to the 
being that becomes divisible in the case of bodies, if 
anyone should wish to call it matter homonymously 
in the sense of a nature underlying the former and 
capable of participating in it, d this use of the term 
makes no difference to the meaning ; but those who 
maintain that corporeal matter is mixed with the 
indivisible being are utterly mistaken, 6 first because 

b Cf Timaeus 37 a 5-6 {orav . . . i<f>dirry]rai . . .) and 
Aristotle's criticism {De An'una 407 a 15-18) as well as his 
own use of the metaphor {Metaphysics 1072 b 20-21 and 
1051 b 24-25) ; cf. also Theophrastus, Metaph. 9 b 13-16 
and Speusippus, frag. 30, 10-11 (Lang) and among the many 
later occurrences especially Hermias, In Platonis Phaedrum, 
p. 64, 15-17 (Couvreur). 

c Cf. Themistius, Anal. Post., p. 64, 18-20 ( T ^v be xadoXov 
€7TL<f>opav 6 vovs 77-0117 creTCu. rovrov yap epyov rjbr) ra rroXXd evovv 
Kai ra direipa, onep <j>-qol TlAdrcov, Trepan ovvbrjcraadai [Philebus 
27 d 9]) and at 1025 c infra the description of the function 
of " sameness " : wv av aj/^rcu . . . avvdyeiv Kai ovvioi dvat 
bid ofJLOLorrjTOS €K ttoXXcov fxlav dvaXapipdvovros fJLOp<f>i)v Kai bvvafxtv. 

d So Plutarch himself has called it : see 1013 c supra 
with note e on page 203 supra and cf. De hide 374 e {tj)v 
x f )V X'h v • • • c ^ s vXrjv . . . tco Xoycp . . . TTapexopLCv). 

e See 1013 b-c supra with note c there. So here Grantor, 
while not the only one (see note d on 1022 e supra), is, 
however unjustifiably and Schwyzer to the contrary not- 
withstanding (Rhein. Mus., lxxxiv [1935], p. 362), one 
among those whom Plutarch has in mind. In addition to 
the subsequent arguments of Plutarch's see the one adduced 
against Eratosthenes by Proclus {In Platonis Timaeum ii, 
p. 152, 28-29 [Diehl]) : Kpacns yap ovk av irore yivono . . . 
d^Lcpiarov Kai OTO/xaTOS". 



1023 rdvovvi, irpcorov /xev 1 ort ro>v iteelvrjs ovopLarajv 
ovSevl vvv 6 JIAcitcov K€-)(pr)Tai (8e£apLevr)v yap 
elwde /cat TravSe^ij /cat riOrjvrjv del KaAeiv eKeLvrjv, 
ov TTepl rd aco/xara jiepiorr)v /xaAAov he oa>fia 
fiepi^opuevov els to kolO* eKaorov) eneira ri hioloei 
rrjs rod KoopLOV yeveoeojs rf rrjs fox*]?* € ^ 7T€ P dpi- 
<f)OT€pois e/c re rrjs vXrjs /cat rtov vorjrwv yeyovev rj 
ovoraois ; avros ye jjltjv 6 HXdrojv, ojoirep dn- 
to6ovp,evo$ z rrjs foxis TT ) V ^ K cr<*>pa>TOS yeveoiv, 
ivros avrrjs (f)7]ow vtto rod 0€ov reOrjvai to aa>/xa- 
tikov elr e£codev vrr' €Ketvrjs 7repiKaXv(f>dfjvaL* - /cat 
B oXojs aTrepyaodfievos ra> Xoyto rr)v ifruxty vorepop 5 
erteiodyei rr)v rrepl rrjs vXrjs VTrodeotv, pLrjSev av- 
Trjs irporepov ore rr)v ^jn>X r ) v eyevva Sendees, d)S 
X<*)pls vXrjs yevopLevrjv. 

22. "O/xota he tovtols eoriv dvreiirelv /cat rots' nepl 
HooetScovLOV. ov yap fiaKpav rrjs vXrjs dTreorrj- 

1 fiev -omitted by f, m, r, Escor. 72. 

2 rj -u. 

3 E, B ; d7TO0€fi€vos -all other mss. 

4 7T€pLK€Ka\v<f>dijvai -r. 

6 VOT€pOS "U. 

a See page 213, note c supra ; and for vvv in this .sense see 
1024 a infra, Plat. Quaest. 1009 c supra, and J. H. Quincey 
(J.H.S., lxxxvi [1966], p. 149, n. 17) on Moralia 22 r. 

6 B€^afjt,€mj occurs in Timaeus 53 a 3 (cf. Plutarch, De 
hide 374 b; [Plutarch], Be Placitis 882 c=Box. Graeci, 
p. 308 a 4-9 and b 5-9), 7ravSex& i n Timaeus 51 a 7, and 
rid-qvr) in Timaeus 49 a 6, 52 d 5, 88 d 6. See pages 185, 
note c and 197, note a supra. 

c This last (cf. De Befectu Orac. 429 b, els nXetova fiep-q 
tov aloQi)TOV KaX GOJfjLariKov fjL€pi£.ofJL€vov 8ta ri)v avp,</>vrov avdyKTjv 
rrjs €T€p6rrjros) is implicitly denied by Plato in Timaeus 51 a 
4-7', where the receptacle is declared to be " not earth or 
air or fire or water firJT€ ocra eV tovtojv p.rJT€ ef <Lv ravra yeyovev.'" 



Plato in the present passage ° has used none of the 
names for the former (for that it is his custom always 
to call receptacle and omnirecipient and nurse, b not 
divisible in the case of bodies but rather body that is 
divided into particularity c ) and secondly wherein 
would the generation of the soul differ from that of 
the universe if both have had as constituents of their 
composition matter and the intelligibles ? d In any 
case, Plato himself, as if warding off from soul the 
coming to be out of body, says that the corporeal 
was placed by god within her and then enveloped 
with her on the outside e ; and, quite generally, it is 
after having produced the soul in his account that he 
introduces in addition the theory about matter/ 
having had no need of it before when he was generat- 
ing the soul, as it presumably came to be apart from 

22. Similar objections can be made also to Posi- 
donius and his followers. 9 For they did not withdraw 

d See 1013 b-c and note e on 1022 f supra. 

• Timaeus 34 b 3-4 and 36 d 9-e 3 (cf. Cherniss, Aristotle's 
Criticism of Plato . . ., pp. 406-407 and n. 334), and see 
supra Plat. Quaest. 1002 b-c with note / there. 

f Plutarch means the account of the receptacle, which is 
introduced at Timaeus 48 e 2 — 49 a 6 ; but he conveniently 
forgets both the earlier treatment of the corporeality of the 
universe (31 b 4 — 32 c 4), to which he had himself referred 
at 1016 f — 1017 a supra, and the warning about the sequence 
given in Timaeus 34 b 10 — 35 a 1 and quoted by himself 
at 1016 a-b supra (cf. Helmer, Be An. Proc, p. 15 and 
Cherniss, Aristotle's Criticism of Plato . . ., pp. 424-425). 

* For this chapter ( = F 141 a [Edelstein-KiddD cf. 
especially Thevenaz, UAme du Monde, pp. 63-67 and in 
P. Merlan's last extensive treatment, Platonism to Neo- 
platonism, pp. 34-58, the bibliography on pp. 55 and 57, to 
which add Marie Laffranque, Poseidonios d'Apame'e (Paris, 
1964), pp. 373-374, pp. 379-380, and pp. 431-432. The 



(1023) aav, 1 dXXd Se^dfievoi rrjv rtov Trepdrajv ovoiav irepl 
tol awfiara Xeyeodai jx^ptarriv /cat ravra rco vorjra) 
liii;avT€S diT^rjvavro ttjv *fwxV v ^eav etvat rod 
7rdvTri hiaorarov kolt dpidfiov avvearaxjav dpfio- 

1 aLTrearrrjaav ttjv ^vx^jv -Epitome 1030 f infra. 

phrase rots irepl IlocrciSajvtoj/ (cf. Wyttenbach, Animadver- 
siones on De E 385 a) might of itself mean only " Posidonius " 
(so Turnebus, Xylander, and Amyot) or only his pupils or 
" circle " (cf. Laffranque, op. cit., p. 379, n. 37) ; but, as by 
oi 7T€pl rdv KpdvTopa (1012 f supra) after ol ok Kpdvropi . . . 
TTpoaeOevro, ynyvvvn . . . (1012 d supra) Plutarch must have 
meant " Crantor and his followers," so here too he probably 
meant to refer both to Posidonius himself and to his fol- 
lowers. His immediate source for the subsequent Posidonian 
interpretation, then, may have been something by one of 
those followers such as the work of Phanias (cf. Diogenes 
Laertius, vii, 41) or even the work by Eudorus that seems 
to have been his source for the interpretations given by 
Xenocrates and Crantor (see note c on 1012 e and note c 
on 1013 b supra; cf. P. Merlan, Philologus, lxxxix [1934], 
p. 211 and Helmer, Be An. Proc, p. 17, n. 22). Such use 
of a secondary source, however, would not of itself prove that 
he did not know the original as well (cf. W. Cronert's 
observation concerning Galen, Gnomon, vi [1930], p. 155). 

° i.e. so interpreting rrjs av irepl rd ocofiara ytyvofiev-qs fiept- 
orrjs (ovalas) of Timaeus 35 a 2-3, which, contrary to Marie 
Laffranque's assertion (op. cit., p. 379), is tantamount to 
saying that the following definition is " une glose posi- 
donienne du Timee" though not that it stood in a" com- 
mentary " on the Timaeus. For the controversy about the 
existence of such a commentary see L. Edelstein, A. J. P., 
Ivii (1936), p. 304, n. 72 ; E. Bickel, Rhein. Mus. t N.F. ciii 
(I960), pp. 8-10 ; K. Abel, Rhein. Mus., N.F. cvii (1964), 
pp. 371-373. 

b i.e. T d nepara, " the limits." Merlan (Platonism to 
Neoplatonism, p. 38) calls this " Plutarch's somewhat care- 
less reference to ' the substance of the limits,' " i.e. rrjv rwv 
nepdrcov ovoiav, and insists that this phrase means ' that 
which is within the Wpara," " the kind of being which ' has ' 
or * accepts ' limits," ovota itself being " the Treircpaofitvov 



far from matter ; but, having taken divisible in the 
case of bodies to mean ° the being of the limits and 
having mixed these b with the intelligible, they de- 
clared the soul to be the idea of what is everyway 
extended/ herself constituted according to number 

without its limits," that is, in fact, for a Stoic vXrj. This 
cannot be what the phrase meant to Plutarch, however, any 
more than rfjs tpvxfjs • • • rrjv ovaiav a few lines below means 
" the kind of being that ' has ' or ' accepts ' soul," for his 
first refutation of the Posidonians explicitly assumes that in 
their interpretation of the psychogony they use the limits 
themselves (rots ra>v acopdrajv nepacnv [1023 c infra]) and not 
any " substance of the limits " in Merlan's sense, while at 
the beginning of the next chapter again (1023 d infra) the 
two constitutive factors of soul ascribed to them are the 
intelligible and the limits tout court (rots iripaai). Nor does 
this leave unexplained, as Merlan contends it would do, 
Plutarch's imputation of '* materialism " to the Posidonians, 
for it has already been said in reference to their interpretation 
(1014 d supra, page 187, note c) that the nature said in the 
Timaeus to become divisible in the case of bodies must not 
be held to be filter) kcu TrXdrrj ... a acu/zacri irpoorJKet, kglI 
acDfiaTcov /LtaAAov rj rrjs fox^s ionv. Whether Plutarch's im- 
putation is justified is another question. He knew that 
according to the Stoics limits are incorporeal (De Comm. Not. 
1080 e infra) but probably knew also that, while existing 
only in thought for the Stoics (S. V.F. ii, frag. 488), they 
exist in reality (Kad* imooracw) as well for Posidonius (Dio- 
genes Laertius, vii, 135) ; and, since according to the latter 
being that is Kara rrjv viroaraoiv differs from matter only in 
thought (Box. Graeci, p. 458, 10-11), one might reasonably 
suppose that for him the limits, which exist in reality, must 
also be material. 

c So much of the definition is identical with that ascribed 
by Iamblichus to Speusippus (frag. 40 [Lang]) ; in an 
obviously Stoic version it is ascribed to Plato himself 
(Diogenes Laertius, iii, 67 : loeav rod iravrr) oicartoros Trvevparos 
[cf. ibid, vii, 157 : soul is Trveu/xa evdcpfiov for Posidonius et 
al.]) ; and the first word by itself, idea % is the Posidonian 
definition in the list given by Macrobius (In Somnium 


(1023) vlav 1 7T€pi€xovT(f rd re yap fmdrjfjLctTiKa tcov 7rpco- 

TtoV VOf}T(x)V jJL€Ta£v KOLL TU)V alo6r)T(x)V T€T(I^^at, 

ttJs" re ifwxrjs, rcov vorjTuyv to dtStov /cat twv alodrj- 

C TCOV 2 TO TTadrjTLKOV €X0VG7jS i 7TpOOrJKOV Z £V fieGti) TTjV 

ovaiav V7rap)(€Lv. eXade yap Kal tovtovs 6 9eos 
rols rcov aa)fjidra)v iripaaiv vorepov, a7T€ipyaofJL€- 
vt)S 7]8rj rrjg i/ruxy$> XP 6 ^/ xevos ' ^ 7TL T V V T V^ vXtjs 
8iajJi6p(j)a)atv, to cKthaoTov avT fjs Kal dovvScTov 
opltov Kal irepiXaixfidvajv rat? €K tojv Tptyajvajv 

OVVapfJLOTTOfJLeVOJV €7Tl(f)aV€LaiS. aT07TO)T€pOV 8e TO* 

1 apfjLovlav -B and Epitome 1030 f infra ; a . . . vac. 5 . . . 
Lav -E (dfiaprLav et^e : dpjiovLav rj ovoLav -in margin) ; d/xaprLav 
-all other mss. 

2 alaOrjTcov -E (tojv over erasure), B ; alodrjTiK&v -all other 


8 TTpoorjKov -mss. and Epitome 1031 a infra (cf. Philo Jud., 
De Vita Mosis ii, § 69 = iv, p. 216, 18-19 [Cohn]) ; irpoar^iv 
-Bernardakis (cf 1022 d infra). 4 rov -e, u, Escor. 72 *. 

Scipionis i, xiv, 19). That Plutarch took loVa to mean a 
Platonic " idea" is clear from his second refutation (1023 c 
infra : droiruiTepov he . . .) ; but that it was not so meant is 
equally clear if, as he here reports, the soul according to 
the Posidonians has her being between the intelligibles and 
the perceptibles. The word is used in Timaeus 35 a 7 itself 
and not in the sense of M idea " (see 1012 c supra with note 
b there), as Plutarch himself knew (see 1025 b infra : . . . 
to ttov . . . -ri\s tfivxfjs ethos) ; and that passage of the Timaeus 
whether directly or through Speusippus is the source of its 
use in the Posidonian definition, where, if the exegesis of 
Plato was meant to be Posidonian doctrine as well, the mean- 
ing intended was " rational configuration " (cf. Proclus, In 
Primum Euclidis El. Lib., p. 143, 8-21 [Friedlein] : . . . t6v 
Xoyov rod oxqpLaros » • • oitlov . . . rrjs irepiox^ with L. Edel- 
stein, A.J.P., Ivii [1936], p. 303) of the tridimensional (for 
rrdvrri [cf. Timaeus 36 E 2 : . irdvrr) Sic^rAa/cetcra] = TpLXJ} cf. 
Aristotle, De Caelo 268 a 7-10 and 24-28 with Simplicius, 
De Caelo, p. 9, 17-29 ; Philo Jud., De Opificio Mundi 36 = i, 
p. 11, 9-10 [Cohn]). As to the intention of Speusippus see 



that embraces concord, a for (they said) the mathe- 
matical have been ranked between the primary 
intelligibles and the perceptibles b and it is an 
appropriate thing for the soul likewise, possessing as 
she does the everlastingness of the intelligibles and 
the passivity of the perceptibles, c to have her being 
in the middle. d In fact these people too failed to 
notice that only later, after the soul has already been 
produced, does god use the limits of the bodies for 
the shaping of matter e by bounding and circum- 
scribing its dispersiveness and incoherence with the 
surfaces made of the triangles fitted together/ 

Cherniss, Aristotle's Criticism of Plato . . ., pp. 509-511 and 
The Riddle, pp. 73-74 with the rejoinder by Merlan, Platon- 
ism to Neoplatonism, pp. 40-48 and p. 56. 

a Cf. Iamblichus, De Coram, Math. Scientia, p. 40, 15-23 
(Festa) : . . . /car* dptO^xovs dpfioviav nepUxovTas v^earcocrrjg 
. . . and Theolog. Arith., p. 30, 7-9 (De Falco) = Anatolius, 
p. 32, 21-22 (Heiberg) = Sextus, Adv. Math, iv, 8 (p. 723, 
17-20 [Bekker]). 

6 For this doctrine, which Aristotle ascribes to Plato by 
name in Metaphysics 987 b 14-18 and 1028 b 19-21, cf. 
Cherniss, The Riddle, pp. 75-78 and E. M. Manasse, 
Philosophische Rundschau, Beiheft 2 (1961), pp. 96-97 and 
pp. 149-156 ; see also note c on Plat. Quaest. 1002 a supra. 

c See note b on 1013 a supra. 

d Cf. Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum ii, p. 153, 18-19 
(Diehi) without reference, however, to the Posidonians or 
Speusippus : ol p.kv pLaOrjfiaTLKTjv noiovvres ttjv ovalav rfjs iftvxTJs 

COS (JL€<J7]V TOOV T€ <j>V<JLKCUV Kdl TCOV V7T€p<f>V00V. . . . 

* Timaeus 53 c 4 — 56 b 6 (cf. 53 b 4 : ... rrpvorov 8t€- 
cxwaTioaTo . . .)» the fabrication of the soul having been 
completed at 36 d 7 (cf. 36 d 8-9). For this argument of 
Plutarch's see the end of the preceding chapter (1023 d 
supra with note /on page 217). 

1 vSee Plat. Quaest. 1001 b-c supra with note / there ; 
and for to aKeBaarov see infra 1023 e (= Timaeus 37 a 5-6) 
and 1024 a (. . . ^epp/xenj? teal aKcbavwixcvrjs • • • vXr)s) and 
Plat. Quaest. 1001 d supra with note b there. 



(1023) rrjv iftvxqv tSe'av iroielv rj p,ev yap aecKivrjTos 1 
r) §' aKivrjTOS, kcu r) pev apuyrjs rrpbs to alodr/Tov r) 
8e rco 2 GtbfjLOLTL avv€ipyfjL€vrj. Trpos 8e rovrois 6 deos 
rrjs fJL€V ISeas <Ls TrapaSety pharos yeyove pupLrjrrjS 
rfjs Se ifwxfis coorrep drroreXeopaTos Srjpuovpyos. 
D OTt 6° oz)S' apidpiov 6 YIXoltcjov rrjv ovaiav rt^erat 3 
rrjs i/jvxrjs dXXd Tarropevrjv irr* apidpov, irpoei- 
prjTOLi . 

23. Upos 8' dp<f>oT€povs rovrovs koivov coti to 
p,rjr€ rots Trepaoi pbrjre tois apiOpiols parjSev ixvos 
iwirapxtw €K€lvt]s ttjs SvvapLeoJS fj to alodrjTOv 

1 Wyttenbach from Epitome 1031 a infra ; cvKLvrfros 


2 to> -omitted by f, m, r. 

3 rider ai rrjv ovaiav -B. 

a See 1013 c supra with note 6 on page 174. 

b Cf. Timaeus 38 a 3 (to oe act Kara, ravrd e^ov aKivr)ra>s) 
and Aristotle, Topics 148 a 20-21 (d7ra0et? yap /cat aKiv^roi 
... at toeat . . .). 

c Cf. Symposium 211 E 1-3 (. . . elAiKpivcs, Ka8apov, apeiKrov 
. . .), Phaedrus 247 c 6-7, and Timaeus 52 a 1-4 (. . . ovre avro 
els aAAo 7roi lov, . . . avaladrjrov). The ideas are " separate," 
by which is meant to dutyes irdovs vXrjs koX /u^Sevt 7Ta9T]raj 
ovfnr€7rX€yfi€vov (Dox. Graeci, p. 304 a 6-8 and b 27-31 ; cf. 
Olympiodorus, In Platonis Phaedonem, pp. 103, 25-104, 2 

d Cf. <jw€pi;as in Timaeus 34 c 2, quoted in 1016 b supra, 
where the soul is mistress of the body, so that the verb here 
is not likely, as Th6venaz supposes (UAme du Monde, 
p. 26, n. 121), to refer to the notion that the body is the 
prison of the soul, the less so since the envelopment of the 
corporeal by the world-soul has just been emphasized by 
Plutarch (1023 a supra with note e there). 

* Cf. Timaeus 28 a 6-b 2, 28 c 6—29 a 6, 37 c 6-j> 1, 
and 39 e 3-7 with Plutarch, Quaest. Conviv. 720 b-c. 

* See 1014 c and 1016 c supra and 1027 a infra, but 



What is more absurd, however, is to make the soul 
an idea, for the former is perpetually in motion a but 
the latter is immobile 6 and the latter cannot mix 
with the perceptible c but the former has been 
coupled with body d ; and, besides, god's relation to 
the idea is that of imitator to pattern e but his 
relation to the soul is that of artificer to finished 
product/ As to number, however, it has been 
stated above that Plato regards the substance of 
soul not as number either but as being ordered by 

23. It is an argument against both of these in 
common/* moreover, that neither in limits nor in 
numbers is there any trace of that faculty with which 
the soul naturally forms judgments of what is 

notice also Plat. Quaest. 1001 c (. . . ovk epyov earl tov 0€ov 
fj.6vov dXXa Kal fX€pos ♦ • •)• 

In 1013 c-d supra (see page 175, note c). By this 
reference Plutarch cannot mean, as both Helmer {Be An. 
Proc, p. 18 [3]) and Thevenaz {VAme du Monde, p. 67) 
think he must, that the earlier refutation of Xenocrates is 
somehow applicable to the Posidonian definition too, for, as 
Thevenaz himself remarks, kolt dpidpov oweoraxjav in this 
definition (1023 b supra) corresponds to kclt dpidp.6v oweordvai 
(1013 d supra), which Plutarch used in refuting the Xeno- 
cratean identification of soul with number. He recurs to 
Xenocrates now because, as the Posidonian definition unlike 
the Xenocratean was obnoxious to the charge of materialism 
brought against others in the preceding chapter, so both the 
Xenocratean and the Posidonian are open to quite different 
objections about to be advanced in the subsequent chapter, 
where, as will be seen, the two interpretations are referred 
to as distinct despite the common defect imputed to them. 

h i.e. the Posidonians and the Xenocrateans. Thevenaz 
(UAme du Monde, p. 27, n. 124) adopts from the Epitome 
1031 b the erroneous reading dp,<f>oT€pots tovtois and so can- 
not account for kowov, which in his translation is omitted or 
disguised as M il va de soi." 



(1023) rj foxy &*&** Kplvew. vovv p^kv ydp avrfj /cat 

(to} 1 VOT)TOV 2 T) TTJS V07]TTJS fX€0€^tS UpX^S €fJLlT€- 
7TOL7]K€' Solas' 0€ /Cat 7TLOT€lS /Cat TO (fraVTOLGTlKOV 

/cat to TradrjTLKov* vtto 4, to>v trepl to aco/ia ttoiott]- 
tojv, tovt* ovk dv tis Ik uovdoa>v ovSe ypafJLjJLCOV 
ov8* €7TL(f>av€La>v drrXcos voiqaeiev eyyiyvopbcvov. /cat 
p/qv ov iiovov at tojv dvrjTcov </a^at 6 yvojuTiK7]v tov 
aloOrjTOv 1 Svvapnv exovotv, dAAd /cat ttjv tov 
E Koapiov (f>7]olv s ava KVKAovpievrjv avTrjv TTpos iavTrjv, 
otclv ovoiav cr/ceoaar^v exovTos twos icfraTTTrjTai 
/cat otclv ap,epiOTOv, Xeyeiv 9 KivovLievrjv Std Trdarjs 

e ~ » > v 10 > \ Til \ </ 12 ** 


€T€pOV, TTpOS O Tt T€ LidXiGTa /Cat 07T7] /Cat OTTOJS^ 

ovpLpaivec Kard tol ytyvopteva 1 * 7rpos Zkclotov 

1 <ro> -added by H. C. 

2 mss. and Epitome 1031 b infra; vo^tikov -Turnebus ; 
vo-qoiv -Wyttenbach ; but cf. Plat. Quaest. 1009 e supra (ttjs 
iv rjiiiv vorjTrjs kq\ voepas BvvdfJLccos) with note b there. 

3 TraQ-qrov -E (with T dotted and cross in margin), B. 

4 vrrep -r. 

5 tout' -H. C. ; o -mss. ; [o] -deleted by Dubner. 

6 rj rdv dvrjTcov ipvyrf -e. 

7 alad-qrov -Turnebus (so Epitome 1031 c) ; aladrjTiKov 


8 <j>VOLV -B, U 1 . 

9 Xey€Lv -e, u, Escor. 72 1 ; Aeytf -E, B, f, m, r, Escor. 

10 rt -Wyttenbach from Timaeus 37 a 7 (so B corr - in 
Epitome 1031 c) ; rt? -mss. 

11 ?J -Stephanus from Timaeus 37 a 7 (so B corr - in Epitome 
1031 c) ; « -mss. 

12 6tov -Bernardakis from Timaeus 37 a 7 (so B corr - in 
Epitome 1031 c) ; 6roj -mss. 

13 onus <Kal 6tt6t€> -Pohlenz from Timaeus 37 b 1 (c/. quid 
quoque loco aut modo aut tempore -Turnebus). 

14 Dubner from Timaeus 37 b 2; Karaytvo^va -mss. ; ko.1 
ra yiv6fjL€va -Epitome 1031 c. 



perceptible.* Intelligence and intelligibility have 
been produced in her by participation in the in- 
telligible principle b ; but opinions and beliefs, that 
is to say what is imaginative and impressionable by 
the qualities in body,** there is not anyone who could 
conceive of this arising in her simply from units or 
from lines or surfaces/ Now, not only do the souls 
of mortal beings have a faculty that is cognizant of 
the perceptible ; but he says f that the soul of the 
universe also as she is revolving upon herself, when- 
ever she touches anything that has being either 
dispersed or indivisible, is moved throughout herself 
and states of anything's being the same and different 
with regard to whatever it is so precisely the respect 
and context and manner of its happening to be or to 
have as attribute < either of these^> in relation to each 

Whereas this had been taken into account by Crantor 
and his followers, /xaAicrra rrjs ifivxys lBlov vnoXafipdvovres epyov 
elvai ro Kpiveiv rd re vorjrd kcli rd aladrjra . . . (1012 F supra 
with note c there on this use of Kpiveiv). 

6 In the account of the Posiaonian interpretation (1023 
b supra) this would be represented by ravra ra> vorjTco /zi'fav- 
tcs. With Plutarch's expression here cf. rod he vov fiereaxev 
oltto rrjs Kpelrrovos dpxfjs eyyevopLevov (1026 E infra [chap. 27 
sub finem]). 

c Timaeus 37 b 8 quoted in 1023 e infra. 

d See 1024 a infra : rrjv 8o£acmKr)v kolI <ftavraoriKr)v kolI 
ovp-iradrj rep aladr)ra> kIvj\oiv. 

* The units " and the " lines or surfaces " here refer 
respectively to the " numbers M of the Xenocratean and the 
11 limits " of the Posidonian interpretations just above (see 
1014 d supra with notes b and c there). 

t Timaeus 37 a 5-b 3, from which Plutarch omits 
as irrelevant to his argument the Kal irpos rd Kara ravra 
exovra del (b 3) and so the re after ytyvopteva (b 2) ; but 
then he ought also to have omitted the Kal 6rav d^epiarov in 
37 a 6. 



(1023) (c/cacrra) 1 etvai Kal iraoyew, iv tovtois dfia teal 
tcov SeKa Karrjyopicov 7tolov/jl€vos V7roypa<j)r)v en 
[idXXov rot? £<f)€£fjs Biaaafet. u Xoyos " yap <f>r]GLv 
" aXrjdrjs orav /xev irepl to aladrjrov yiyvvyrai /cat 
o tov 2 Oarepov kvkXos opdos* Iojv ets* iraoav avrov 
ttjv *ftvx*l v oiayyzlXr), So£at /cat irioreis ylyvovrat 
F jSejSatot /cat dXrjOeZs- orav S' av Trepl to Aoytart- 
kov* fj /cat o rod ravrov 6 kvkXos evrpo^os tbv 
avrd fjiYjvvGrj, €7TiGTqpt/rf ££ dvayK-qs dTToreXtlrai' 
tovtu) 1 8 iv & Ttiov ovtcdv eyylyveGdov , idv rrore 
rts avro aAAo 77A17V iffV^qv TrpoaecTrrj, ixdv fxdXXov 
tj to dXrjdes ipeT." rroOev ovv eayev rj ftuxV T V V 
dvTiXrj7TTLKrjv tov aladrjTov Kal oo^aariKrjv ravrov 
1024 klvtjglv, kripav rrjs vorjriKrjs 8 eKeivrjs /cat reXev- 
Tworjs els i7TLGTrjfjLr}v, epyov elirelv fir) defievovs 
fSzfSaiais on vvv ovx dnXcos *jrvX7l p dXXd kogjjlov 


tovos ovGias /cat djJLcpiorov 10 /cat rrjs 11 ^€toovos , > fjv 

1 Added by Maurommates from Epitome 1031 c and 
Timaeus 37 b 2. 

2 tov -omitted by E, B. 

3 6 P 0u>s -r C0TT ' 

4 XoytKov -r. 

u rod avrov -U. 

G vovs i7ncrrrjfJL.T] tc -Timaeus 37 c 2. 

7 rovro -E, B ; rovrco -u, r, Aldine. 

8 vor/rrjs -Epitome 1031 d. 

9 V7TOK€L^€V7]5 -Epitome 1031 D-E. 

10 Kal rrjs apepicrrov -T. 

11 rrjs -omitted by f, m, r, Aldine. 

° Cf. Albinus, Epitome vi, 10 (p. 159, 34-35 [Hermann ] = 
p. 37, 1-2 [Louis]), where they are said to have been adum- 
brated by Plato in the Parmenides and elsewhere. A work 
by Plutarch entitled AtaAffi? trepl rwv SeVa KarrjyopLa>v is 
No. 192 in the Catalogue of Lamprias. 



among the things that come to be. As in these 
words he is simultaneously giving an outline of the 
ten categories ° too, in those that follow he states the 
case more clearly still, for he says 6 : " Whenever 
true discourse is concerning itself about the per- 
ceptible and the circle of difference running aright 
conveys the message through all its soul, there arise 
opinions and beliefs steadfast and true ; but, when- 
ever on the other hand it is concerned about the 
rational and the circle of sameness running smoothly 
gives the information, knowledge c is of necessity 
produced ; and, if anyone ever calls by another name 
than soul that one of existing things in which these 
two come to be, he will be speaking anything but the 
truth/' Whence, then, did the soul get this motion 
that can apprehend what is perceptible and form 
opinions of it, a motion different from that which is 
intellective and issues in knowledge ? It is difficult 
to say without steadfastly maintaining that in the 
present passage d he is constructing not soul in the 
absolute sense but the soul of the universe out of 
entities already available, the superior, that is to say 
indivisible, being and the inferior, which he has 

b Timaeus 37 b 3-c 5, from which Plutarch omits he 6 
Kara ravrov in B 3-4 and yiyvofievos . . . rjXV^ m B ^"^ anc * 
reduces vovs emorrjfir) re in c 2 to eViCTr??/^. 

c By reducing Plato's vovs emarrj/jL-r) re to imarijfx-n alone 
Plutarch suppresses the embarrassing fact that vovs here is 
clearly treated as a state of soul and not a transcendent 
entity made an ingredient of it (c/. Proclus, In Platonis 
Timaeum ii, pp. 313, 24r-314, 5 [Diehl] and Cherniss, 
Aristotle's Criticism of Plato ...» p. 607). 

d This is not the last two passages cited (Timaeus 37 a 5- 
b 3 and b 3-c 5) but the central passage under discussion, 
Timaeus 35 a 1-b 4 (1012 b-c supra); for vvv see note a 
on 1023 a supra. 



(1024) 7T€pl to, acofjiara fiepioTrrv /ce/cATj/cev, ovx irepav 

OVOdV T) TTjV 8o£a(7TlKr)V KCLl (jxXVTOLOTlKrjV KOil OVfl- 

7Ta6rj rep aladrjrcp 1 Ktvrjaiv, ov yevo[JL€vr]v dXXd 
v<j)€ara)Gav dlotov warrep rj ire pa. to ydp voepov 
rj (f>vais exovaa koll to So^clgtlkov et^^v dAA' 
€K€lvo [lev aKLvrjrov (kcu) 2 drrade^ Kal rrepl ttjv del 
[livovoav l&pvfJLevov 9 ovoiav tovto oe fiepLarov Kal 
nXavrjTov , are 8r) (frepofievrjs Kal <JK€oavwfA€V7]s 
B i(f>a7rr6pL€vov vXrjs. ovre ydp ro aloOrjTov elXfyei 
rd^eojs aAA' rjv dpLopcfrov Kal doptorov, rj re rrepl 
tovto TCTaypLevr] ovvapus ovt€ S6£as* €vdpdpovs b 

1 tojv aloOrjTcov -Epitome 1031 E. 

2 <kclI> -supplied by Miiller (1873) from Epitome 1031 k. 

3 I8pvfi€vr]v -u, Escor. 72 l . 

4 ho£av -ii. 

5 dvdpdpovs -e, u, Escor. 72, Aid in e. 

° See supra 1015 e with note 6 and 1014 d referred to 

b See supra page 209 with notes atoe and 1014 c referred 
to there. 

c rj 4>vois (called " wohl corrupt" by B. Miiller [1873] 
ad loc.) is used here to designate the precosmic state as it is 
in 1015 E supra (ovb* dpxds rfj (f>vo€t . . . napeaxcv, dXX* ovo-qs 
iv TtdQeot . . .). 

d i.e. " the former "just mentioned, the " indivisible being " 
of Tlmaeus 35 a 1-2; cf. 1024 d infra, where vovs = tco 
dfxeptGTO) . . . /cat ra> nrjbafjifj KLvrjrw. 

e See 1024 c infra : 6 Se vovs avros p,ev . . . p.6vifxos r\v 
Kal aKtv-qros. Plato says nothing of the kind ; but, since 
immobility and impassivity are characteristics of the in- 
telligible being of the ideas (see page 223 supra with note b 
there), Plutarch, who identifies the indivisible being of the 
intelligibles (cf. Plat. Quaest. 1001 d supra : -f) ydp dp,€piaros 
ovola . . . rayv vo-qrejv) with precosmic vovs (see the immediately 
preceding note), naturally ascribes to the latter these charac- 
teristics of the former (see 1016 c supra with note c [rijs 
(.tovLjAov re kolL dplcrrrjs ovcrias €K€tvrjs] and 1026 A infra [ra> 


called divisible in the case of bodies, this latter 
being none other than the opinionative and imagin- 
ative motion sensitive to what is perceptible, not 
brought into being but having subsisted everlastingly 
just like the former. b For nature c possessing intel- 
lectuality d possessed the opinionative faculty also, 
the former, however, immobile e {and) impassive f 
and settled about the being that always remains 
fixed g but the latter divisible and erratic inasmuch 
as it was in contact with matter, which was in motion 
and in dispersion. h The fact is that the perceptible 
had not got any portion of order but was amorphous 
and indefinite i ; and the faculty stationed about this 
had neither articulate opinions nor motions that were 

irtpi T(i votjtci uoviptp]). Since at the same time he regards 
god as the source of rationality in the soul (see supra 1016 c 
with note d), he was perhaps not uninfluenced by the Aristo- 
telian notion of god as vovs aKivqros^ which is read into Plato 
by Albinus in Epitome x, 2 (p. 57, 5-9 [Louis] = p. 164, 20- 
24 [Hermann]). The vovs as irpojros Oeos may have been 
called /xovt/xo? even by Xenocrates, since he identified it with 
the fjovds (frag. 15 [Heinze] ; and for vovs = fiovds Sta to 
fjiovifiov cf. Alexander, Metaph., p. 39, 14-15 and A. Delatte, 
Etudes sur la litterature pythagoricienne [Paris, 1915], p. 
167, 3-4). 

' See supra 1022 e, page 215, note a. 

a Cf. 1024 d infra (ncpl to uevov del) and Plat. Quaest. 
1007 d supra (to votjtov . . . del /zcvciv). 

h See supra 1023 c, note/ and Plat. Quaest. 1001 d, note 
b with the references there. The combination of ^epio-rov /cat 
irXavrjTov here (the former referring to oK€$avvvn4vr)s> the 
latter to fepoiiivys) recalls the identification as precosmic 
disorderly soul of both the divisible being and the necessity 
of the Timaeus (1014 d-e supra), since the latter is called 
a 7rXavojfi€vrj atria (Timaeus 48 a 6-7). 

* For the confusion involved in speaking of M the per- 
ceptible " and of " corporeality " (just below) in this pre- 
cosmic state taken literally see page 184, note c supra. 



(1024) ovre Kivqaeis dndaas €?X € * ^erayfjJvas dXXd rds 
vroXXas iwnviwSeis /cat irapa^opovs /cat rapar- 
tovgols to acofiaroeibes, ocra p,r) Kara tvxtjv ra> 
fieXrlovi 7f€pUui7TT€v' iv fidaw yap fy dfi<f)olv /cat 
Trpos djJL^orepa avfiTraOij /cat avyyevrj <f>vaiv €t^£, 
rai fiev alaOrjTLKO) rfjs vXrjs avrexofxevrj ra> Se 


24. Ovrco 8e ttcjjs /cat avros 2 Scaaa^el rot? dvd- 

jiaoiv u ovtos " yap ^ryat " irapa rrjs epirjs iprj(f)ov 

Xoycodels iv KC^aXaicp SeSoodw Xoyos, 6v re /cat 

C x (J ^P av Ka1, ytveaiv elvai rpia Tpixfj /cat TTplv ov- 

pavov yeveaOaiy ^copav re yap /caAet rrjv vXrjv 

1 E 1 (in margin), B ; e^ouaa -all other mss., Aldine, 
Epitome 1031 f. 

2 riAar<w -Epitome 1032 a. 

a C/. in 1026 e rn/ra the period eV $ to iikv foovifiov . . . 
KaTahapQavti . . . and Zte Fac/tf 944 e-f, where the substance 
of soul from which vovs has been separated is said to retain 
txvrj T ^ fit° v K aL oveipara. 

6 See 1015 E supra (rrjv vXrjv . . . vno tt}s dvorjrov rapar- 
rofidjrqv alrlas) with note g there. 

c Cf. Timaeus 69 b 6 (. . . ovt€ tovtodv, oaov firj rvxzj, n 
(jl€T€lx*v • • •)« referring to the fy^ °f Timaeus 53 h quoted 
by Plutarch in 1016 e-f supra. 

d The subject of iv /xeW fy as of the preceding -nzpitTTiirrtv 
must be the precosmic disorderly soul, the hoiaariK-q teal <f>avra- 
ariKT) . . . KLvrjcFis identified by Plutarch with ij Trepi to. acofiara 
liepio-rr) ovola of Timaeus 35 a (see also 1024 c infra : rrjv iv 
/Lt€Taj3oAats Kai Kivijaecnv ovoiav . . . fi€ra£v rtrayp.ivr\v . . . fieptarr) 
TTpooTjyopcvdT) . . .), though in the Timaeus it is not this being 
that is iv fiiaa) but rather that produced by the demiurge 
between it and indivisible being to be the ovoia that is an 
ingredient of soul. See the next note infra. 

e Though to KpLTtKov can refer to the exercise of aloOr]ois 
as well as of vovs (see 1024 e infra with note e there), here 
it can mean only the latter, for it is explicitly distinguished 



all orderly, but most of them were dreamlike a and 
deranged and were disturbing corporeality b save in so 
far as it would by chance encounter that which is the 
better/ for it was intermediate between the two d 
and had a nature sensitive and akin to both, with its 
perceptivity laying hold on matter and with its 
discernment on the intelligibles. 6 

24. In terms that go something like this f he states 
the case clearly himself, for he says g : " Let this be 
he account rendered in summation as reckoned from 
my calculation, that real existence and space and 
becoming were three and distinct h even before 
heaven came to be." Now, it is matter that he calls 

from to) aloBr]riKco and moreover Kpnripiov rod vor\rov \iovov iorlv 
6 vovs (Plat. Quaest. 1002 d supra). Thus Plutarch's precos- 
mic disorderly soul, though called avo-qros (1014 c and 1015 t 
suj>ra) and just distinguished (1024 a supra) as to So^aart/cdv 
from the precosmic voepoV, which comes to the former he 
maintains only by the action of god in the psychogony (see 
1016 C supra [rto aloQr\riK(h to voepov . . . afi avrov 7rapaax<*>v 
. . .] ; cf. 1026 e Infra [rod 8e vov \x^ria\^.v euro ttjs Kpzlrrovos 
dpxrjs eyycvofievov]), is here given the intermediate position 
that properly belongs to the " created " soul (see the immedi- 
ately preceding note) and with it the faculty of vovs that it 
should not have at all until after the psychogony. Similarly 
it is said in the next chapter (1024 c infra) to disperse in this 
world the semblances of the intelligible ideas, which in its 
context shows that the attempt to interpret literally the 
11 precosmic chaos " of Timaeus 52 d — 53 n was what con- 
strained Plutarch here to contradict his own literal interpre- 
tation of the psychogony by ascribing to his precosmic dis- 
orderly soul characteristics proper according to his own 
account only to the " created " soul. 

t Cf P. Shorey, Class. Phil., xvii (1922), pp. 261-262 on 
Euthydemus 304 e. 

9 Timaeus 52 d 2-4. 

h Cf. Proclus, In Platonis Thnaeum i, p. 358, 11-12 
(l)iehl) : otclv Xiyrj rpio. ravra chat X^pk- ■ * ' 



(1024) a)G7T€p eSpav eariv ore /cat vnoSoxrjv, ov 8e to 
voyjtov, yiveow he rod KoapLov /xijira) yeyovoros 
ovSefjLLav dXXrjv r/ rrjv iv /xerajSoAat? /cat kivtjozoiv 
ovotav, rod tvttovvtos kcu rod Tvirovpiivov fiera^v 
rerayiJLevrjv, SiaSiSovoav 1 ivravOa ras* eKelOev el- 
kovols. Sia re 8rj ravra pLepLOTrj 7rpoorjyopevdrj 
/cat otl rep alodrjrcp to alodavofxevov /cat ra> <f>av- 
TdOTCp to cj>avTat,6fJievov avdyKT) uvvSiavepiecrOai 
/cat avfJL7TaprjK€LV rj yap alodrjTLKrj Kcvrjois, iota 
foxVS °v aa > Kivetrai npos to alodr^Tov €ktos' o Se 
vovs civtos jjl€V £((>' iavrov 2 fiovipLOS rjv /cat olklv^tos, 

1 SiaSovoav -r. 
2 E, B, e, u ; a^' iavrov -f, m, r, Escor. 72, Aldine. 

a See note c on page 184 supra. 

b Cf. Timaeus 52 a 1-4 with c 5-d 1, 48 e 5-6, 27 d 6— 
28 a 4. 

c Taking Timaeus 52 d — 53 b literally, Plutarch had to 
identify the precosmic soul that he posited with one of the 
three alone there named as being " before heaven came to 
be." Of these there remained to him only yeWats, and he 
may even have thought this identification supported by 
i/jvxyv • • • T17V 7rpa>Tr)v yiveoiv of Laws 896 a 5-ij 1 and 899 c 
6-7 (see 1013 f supra w r ith note a there). Yet he must have 
understood that yevtais in the Timaeus is not an entity 
transmitting to this world or dispersing in it the semblances 
of the other but is itself ra yiyyd/xcva, the " offspring " of 
the intelligible and the receptacle and only in this sense 
something " between " them {cf. Timaeus 50 c 7-d 4), for 
this is the conception that he elsewhere himself ascribes to 
Plato (De hide 373 e [6 ftkv ovv UXoltojv to fikv votjtov . . . 
7raT€pa, rfjv 8e vXrjv koli ixyrdpa . . . koli x^P av y^via€ws, to h* 


space, as he sometimes calls it abode and receptacle, 
and the intelligible that he calls real existence b ; and 
what he calls becoming, the universe not yet having 
come to be, is nothing other than that being involved 
in changes and motions which, ranged between what 
makes impressions and what receives them, disperses 
in this world the semblances from that world yonder. 
For this very reason it was called divisible d and also 
because it is necessary for that which is perceiving and 
that which is forming mental images to be divided in 
correspondence with what is perceptible and with 
what is imaginable and to be coextensive with them, 6 
for the motion of sense-perception, which is the 
soul's own/ moves towards what is perceptible with- 
out g but the intelligence, while it was abiding and 
immobile all by itself,^ upon having got into the soul 

e£ dfjL(f>olv exyovov teal y4v€oiv ovofxd^eLv etcoOev] and 372 f [€iK(hv 
yap iariv ovalas iv vXrj yeveais . . .])• In any case, Plutarch's 
precosmic soul, here identified with yeVcns, is irrational ; and 
his giving it access to the intelligible world is an inconsist- 
ency resulting from his attempt to account for the " traces " 
and " modifications " in the chaos of Timaeus 52 d — 53 b as 
literally precosmic (see note e on 1024 b supra). 

d i.e. Timaeus 35 a, where, however, the ficptarr} ovaia 
is explicitly not ^era^v rcTayp,€VTj (see note d on 1024 b 

e See 1024 a supra (pepLOTov . . . aire . . . aKeSavwfievrjs 
i<t>a7TTOfjk€vov vX-qs) and cf. Simplicius, De An., p. 45, 8-10 ; 
for the term crvinrapriKtiv cf. Boethus in Simplicius, Categ., 
p. 434, 3-4. 

f Because ttjv . . . ovfnraOrj ru) aladrjTO) Kivrjoiv is arrAcus - 
ipvxtf (1024 a supra ; cf. ipvxr) Kad* iavrrjv in 1014 d-e supra). 

Cf. [Plutarch], De Placitis 899 n = Dox. Graeci, p. 394 a 
15-20 ; Porphyry, Sententiae xliii (pp. 41, 24-42, 1 and 42, 
13-14 [Mommert]) = Stobaeus, Eel. i, 48, 5 (pp 313, 15-17 
and 314, 5-7 [Wachsmuth]). 

h See note e on 1024 a supra. 



{WZ^) cyyevofievos be rfj iftvxfj Kal Kparrjoas els iavrov 
imaTp€(f)ei Kal avpLrrepatvei ttjv eyKVKXtov <f>opdv 
Trepl to puevov del 1 pbdAiura ijjavovoav rod ovros. 
Sto Kal SvoavoLKparos rj Koivajvia yeyovev avrtov, 
Tto ap,€piora) to 2 pLepicrrdv Kal rep pL-qSapLfj Kivr\- 
ra> z to rravrrj (froprjTov pnyvuovaa Kal Karafiiato- 
pi€vrj i Odrepop els ravrov 5 avveXQelv . rjv be to 
Odrepov ov KLvrjGLS, 6 woTrep ovbe TavTov 1 oTaois, 
dXX apx^j bia(f>opas Kal dvopLOLOTr]Tos . eKarepov 
yap oltto ttjs ere pas apx^js Kareioi, to piev TavTov 
airo tov epos to oe uarepov arro ttjs ovaoos' /cat 
piepuKTai TrpcoTov evTavda Trepl ttjv ifjvxtfv, apiQ- 
E piols Kal Xoyots ovvbeOevTa Kal pbeooTTjoiv esappuo- 
1 to per del -u ; to del -f. 2 tov -e, u, Escor. 72 1 . 

3 KivrjTOV -r. 

4 KaTafiifia^Ofjievr) -m , r. 

5 TauTo -E 1 , B 1 (v superscript -E 1 , B 1 ), r. 

6 i)v Sc to ddrepov ov Kivrjms -margin of f 1 (to omitted) and 
of m 1 , Epitome 1032 c ; rjv 6k to erepov klvtjois -E (ovk i)v in 
margin -E 1 , r) superscript between v and k -E 2 ) ; ovk (two 
dots over v) r\v be to erepov rj kivk)ois -B ; i)v 8e to Odrepov r) 
KivTjcris -e, u, f, m, r, Escor. 72, Aldine. 

7 oioirep 8e ravrov ((Zcmep 8e ov ravrov in margin) -f, m ; 
coonep 817 Taurov (ov ravrov in margin) -r. 

8 to he €T€pov -E, B (ddrepov in margin -B 1 ). 

a See Plat. Quaest. 1003 a with note i there for Kparrjaaoa 
. . . incoTpei/jev used of the rational soul's action upon the 
motions of matter. Similar language to describe the influ- 
ence of god upon the world-soul and its vovs is used by 
Albinus in Epitome x, 3 and xiv, 3 (pp. 59, 5-7 and 81, 4-9 
[Louis] = pp. 165, 1-3 and 169, 30-35 [Hermann]), with 
which cf. also Chalcidius, Platonis Timaeus, p. 226, 8-9 
(Wrobel) = p. 205, 1-2 (Waszink). 

6 Cf Proclus, In Primum Euclidis El. Lib., p. 147, 15-18 
(Friedlein). For Trepl to fxevov del see 1024 a, note g supra, 
and for the " circular motion " see Plat. Qvaest. 1004 c 
with note d there. 


and taken control makes her turn around to him a 
and with her accomplishes about that which always 
remains fixed the circular motion most closely in 
contact with real existence. 6 This is also why the 
union of them proved to be a difficult fusion, being a 
mixing of the divisible with the indivisible c and of 
the altogether transient with the utterly immobile 
and a constraining of difference to unite with same- 
ness. Difference is not motion, however, as same- 
ness is not rest either, d but the principle of dif- 
ferentiation and dissimilitude. 6 In fact, each of the 
two derives from another of two principles, sameness 
from the one and difference from the dyad f ; and it 
is first here in the soul that they have been com- 
mingled, bound together by numbers and ratios and 

c In Timaeus 35 a (see 1012 c supra) hvaaiKrov is used 
not of the " divisible " or the " indivisible " but of " differ- 
ence " alone, and this Plutarch himself later emphasizes and 
defends just after having distinguished the " divisible " and 
the " indivisible " from "difference" and "sameness" 
(1025 b-c infra), 

d See supra 1013 d with notes/ and g there ; ijv here is 
the " philosophical imperfect." 

• Cf. 1025 c infra (to fikv ravrov t'Sea rcov (Lcravrcjs e'xoWwv 
iorl to Sc Odrepov twv $ia<f>6pa)s . . •) and De Defectu Orac. 428 c 
(fj rod 4repov hvyafiis • • • ivelpy aoTat . . . ras . . . avopboior-qras) » 

1 Cf, Nicomachus, Arithmetica Introductio n, xvii, 1 
(p. 109, 2-6 [Hoche]) and on this passage Philoponus, 
B, ve, lines 12-15 (Hoche) and Asclepius, n, uj, lines 17-19 
(Taran) ; Moderatus in Porphyry, Vita Pythagorae, 49-50 
(p. 44, 8-18 [Nauck]) ; Plutarch, De Garrulitate 507 a 
(17 Se Sua? apx 1 ? Stcu^opas aopioros). With the derivation from 
these principles introduced here and reflected in the reference 
to " dyadic " and " monadic " parts in 1025 d infra Plu- 
tarch comes near to giving soul an arithmetical character 
not unlike that to which he objects in the Xenocratean inter- 
pretation (1013 c-d and 1023 c-d [chap. 22 subfinem] supra). 
See similarly note b on 1025 a infra, 



(1024) vioiSy /cat TToiel 1 ddrepov p,ev eyyevo/xevov ra> ravrco 
8ia<f>opdv to 8e tclvtov ev Tib eTepto tol^iv, ibs S77- 
Xov eoTiv ev toXs TrpojTais ttjs ifjvx?js Bwdfieaw elcrl 
8e auTat to KpiTiKov /cat to kivtjtlkov. 2 rj fiev ovv 
Kiirqois evQvs €7tl8€lkwtcll nepl tov ovpavov ev 

fJL€V S Tjj TaVTOTTjTL TTjV eTepOTTjTOL Tjj 7T€pi(f)0pa TCOV 

dvXavoov* ev 8e tjj eTepoTrjTi ttjv TavTOTrjTa tjj ra^cc 
tcov rrXavrJTOJV 5 ' eiriKpaTel yap ev eKeivois to Tav- 
tov ev 8e tols rrepl yrjv tovvclvtlov. rj 8e Kpiois* 
dp^ds jJiev e%ei 8vo, tov t€ vovv drro tov 1 tclvtov 
77/009 Ta KadoXov /cat ttjv aio6r)oiv drno tov eTepov 
F Trpos Ta KaO* eKaoTa. [jLefiiKTCLL 8e Xoyos c| dp- 

1 not -r. 2 KivrjTov -u. 3 iv be -f, m, r, Aldine. 

4 dirXavcov -mss. ; under this word TrXavrjTwv -E 1 , and in 
margin as correction -B 1 . 

5 rtuv rrXavrirojv -Epitome 1032 d ; tcov . . . vac. 6 . . . -E, 
B ; tcov dnXavcov -e, u, Escor. 72, Aldine ; tcov TrXavcoyuivcov 
-f, m, r. 6 Kivrjais -u, Aldine. 

7 rod -E 1 (added superscript), B, Epitome 1032 d ; 
omitted by all other mss. and Aldine. 

Not " harmonic," for which Plutarch uses the regular 
technical expression, dpfiovLKr) pecrorqs, and which he knows 
is only one of the two means used in Timaeus 36 a (see 
1019 d and 1028 a infra) ; see page 175 supra with note c 
there on dpiOfioo koX Xoyoo kcu dpfiovla. 

h Cf. 1025 f and 1027 a (ttj 8c tolvtov /cat ttJ iTcpov cWa/xei 
rdfiv . . . kol Sta^opdv . . .) infra ; and for another use 
of the distinction between difference in sameness and same- 
ness in difference cf Porphyry, Sententiae xxxvi and xxxvii 
(p. 31, 1-9 and pp. 32, 15-33, 8 [Mommert]) and Marius 
Victorinus, Adv. Arium i, 48, 22-28 (Henry-Hadot). 

c Cf Aristotle, De Anima 432 a 15-17. 

d Cf Be Virtute Morali 441 e-f. In Timaeus 36 c 4^d 7 
the single and undivided outer revolution, into which all the 
" fixed stars " are set (40 a 2-b 6), is called the motion of 
sameness ; and the inner revolution of seven circles, un- 
equal and with speeds different but rationally related (and 



harmonious means, a and that difference come to be 
in sameness produces differentiation but sameness in 
difference order, 5 as is clear in the case of the soul's 
primary faculties. These are the faculties of discern- 
ment and motivity. c Now, directly in the heaven 
motion exhibits diversity in identity by the revolution 
of the fixed stars and identity in diversity by the 
order of the planets, for in the former sameness pre- 
dominates but its opposite in the things about the 
earth. d Discernment, however, has two principles/ 
intelligence proceeding from sameness to universals 
and sense-perception from difference to particulars f ; 

so " ordered "), into each of which one of the planets is set 
(38 c 7-d 1), is called the motion of difference. All these 
circles, however, are homogeneous in constitution (35 b 1-3 
and 36 b 5-c 4) ; and their designations are not meant to 
distinguish as their respective constituents the sameness and 
difference that were ingredients in the blending of soul (so 
apparently " Timaeus Locrus " 96 c [. . . rdirep alQipia . . . 
ra p.kv r&s tolvtu) (frvaios ef/xev ra Se ras ru) cVe'pcu.]) or to 
indicate any predominance of one or the other of the latter 
in each of the two revolutions such as Plutarch here assumes 
and for which even Proclus tries to account though re- 
cognizing that the constitution of the two revolutions is 
homogeneous (In Platonis Timaeum ii, pp. 253, 23-255, 
8 and p. 255, 13-16 [Diehl]). 

• Cf. Aristotle, De Anima 432 a 16 (. . . ra> re kdltlkco [see 
note c supra] o Siavoi'as epyov earl /cat alad-qaeajs) and see supra 
1012 f, note c and 1023 d, note a on Kpivtiv. With apx&s . . . 
Bvo here cf. Albinus, Epitome iv, 4 (p. 13, 14-15 [Louis] = p. 
154, 28-29 [Hermann]). 

f Cf. Timaeus 37 b 6-c 3 (1023 e-f supra)> where from 
the reports of the circle of sameness concerning the rational 
and of the circle of difference concerning the perceptible 
arise respectively knowledge and opinion ; but the char- 
acters of these circles Plutarch here, as in the preceding 
sentence (see note d supra), equates with the sameness and 
difference that are ingredients of soul. For universals as 



(1024) (j>otv, vorjois £v rots vorjrdis teal 86£a yiyvopcevos ev 

tols alodrjTois opydvots re [xera^v 1 (Jxxvtolglcus re 

/cat fivrj/xods 2 ^pco/xe^os', &v ra p,ev iv ra> ravra) 

to erepov ra S' ev rep ere pep rroiel to ravrov. eon 

yap rj [iev vorjocs klvtjois rod voovvros rrepl to 

puevov, 7} 8e Sd£a fiovr) rod aloOavopevov rrepl ro 

1025 KivovLievov. (f>avraotav 8e ovjxttXok^v ho^r]s rrpos 

alodrjotv ovoav Igtt^oiv ev jjLvrjfirj ro ravrov ro he 

1 t€ Kdl fiera^v -Aldine ; tc rats fiera^v -Stephanus. 
2 yvcofiats -r. 

the objects of knowledge or intelligence contrasted to par- 
ticulars as the objects of sense-perception see 1025 e infra 
(. . . votiv ixkv inelva ravra 5' aloddvecrOat . . .) and cf. Aristotle, 
De Anima 417 b 22-23 and Physics 180 a 5-8 : A reins 
Didymus, Epitomes Frag. Phys. 16 (Do.r. Graea\ p. 456, 
9-12) ; Proclus, In Primum Euclidis El. Lib.* p. 80, 11-15 

a i.e. the Aoyos of Timaeus 37 b 3 (ratio in Cicero, Timaeus 
28, p. 177, 2 [Plasberg] and motus rationabilis in Chalcidius, 
Platonis Timaeus, p. 172, 11 and 19-21 [Wrobel] = p. 153, 
16 and 23-25 [Waszink]), which there, however, means 
" discourse " (see 1023 e supra) but discourse which is 
articulate thought (cf. Theaetetus 189 e 6-7 and Sophist 
263 e 3-6). 

* Cf. Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum i, p. 255, 2-24 and 
ii, p. 299, 16-24 (Diehl) ; and cf. also the Sitto? Xoyos of 
Albinus, Epitome iv, 3 (p. 13, 8-11 [Louis] = p. 154, 22-25 
[Hermann]) with the duplex virtus of the rational part of the 
soul in Chalcidius, Platmiis Timaeus, p. 198, 22-26 (Wrobel) 
= p. 177, 14-17 (Waszink). 

c For the connexion of /u.v7?/at? and <f>avraoia cf. Aristotle, 
Be Memoria 450 a 22-25 and 451 a 14-17 ; with opydvots cf. 
Plutarch, frag, xv (vii, p. Ill, 12-14 [Bernardakis]) = frag. 
23, 9-11 (Sandbach) and Adv. Colotem 1119 a (ra Se Xonra 



and reason is a blend of both, becoming intellection 
in the case of the intelligibles and opinion in the case 
of the perceptibles b and employing between them 
mental images and memories as instruments, 6 of 
which the former are produced by difference in same- 
ness and the latter by sameness in difference. d For 
intellection is motion of what is cognizing about what 
remains fixed,* and opinion fixity of what is per- 
ceiving about what is in motion f ; but mental 
imagining, which is a combination of opinion with 
sense-perception,? is brought to a stop in memory 

. . . opyava rrjs tovtov ovvdfiecos) ; and with ficra^v cf. 
Plotinus, Enn. iv, iv, 13, line 13 and Proclus, In Primum 
Euclidis EL Lib., p. 52, 10-21 (Friedlein). 

d The antecedent of <Lv rd ^v ... rd 8' is not, as Thevenaz 
thought (VAme du Monde, pp. 29 and 81), rot? vorjrots . . . 
rots ataOrjTois but <j>avraoiais tc kox /xv^/xais treated as neuter 
because of opydvois. Their dependence upon difference and 
sameness is explained in the second half of the next sentence, 
as was that of vovs and ataOrjais in the preceding one (page 
237, note/). The whole of this exposition has to do with the 
roles of sameness and difference not in the existence of in- 
telligibles and perceptibles but in the constitution of the 
soul's faculties (see 1024 e supra). 

e See 1024 d supra with note b there ; and cf. Aristotle, 
De Anima 407 a 20-22 (on the Timaeus) : vov fitv yap kivtiols 
vorjoig. . . . 

1 Contrast to ooi^aariKOV . . . TrXavrjrov, are 817 <f>€pOfi€vrjs . • • 
tyaTTToixtvov vXrjs (1024 a supra) and rco alaOrjTcp to aloBavoyLtvov 
. . . dvdyKT) . . . GvpL7raprJK€tv (1024 c supra) ; but cf. Sdfat . . . 
/fe'^cuoi of Timaeus 37 b 8 (1023 e supra) and the interpre- 
tation by Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum ii, p. 310, 5-10 (Diehl). 

9 Cf. Aristotle, De Anima 428 a 25-26 (ovbe avfinXoKri 
ho£r}s Kal alodtfoews) against Plato, Sophist 264 b 1-2 (cru/x/zetfts- 
alodrjoeois Kal oofys), where oo£a means "judgment," how- 
ever, hiavoias dTroTcXevnjois, in distinction from its meaning in 
Timaeus 37 b 8 (cf. Proclus, In Platonis Rem Publicam i, pp. 
262, 25-263, 8 [Kroll]). 



(1025) darepov 1 Kivel rraXiv €V 8ia(f>opa 2 rod TrpooOev /cat 


vrjv. 3 

25. Aet 8k tt]v rrepl ro crcS/xa rod KoafAov yevo- 
fjLevrjv crvvTrjgiv* €LKova Xafietv rrjs avaXoylas iv fj 
SirjpfJLoaaro 6 i/n^r/i/.* €Kel fikv yap rjv a/cpa ro 1 rrvp 
/cat rf yr\y x^Xerrrjv 9 rrpos aAAryAa Kpadfjvou (j>vacv 
exovra fidXXov 8k SXa>s aKparov /cat aavararov' 

O0€V €V fJL€GO) 0€[JL€VOS aUTCOV TOV fJL€V OL€pa 7Tp6 TOV 
TTVpOS TO 8k v8(x)p 7Tp6 TTJS y^9, TCLVTa 7TpO)TOV dA- 

XrjXois eKepaaev etra Sta tovtojv e/cetva rrpos re 

B ravra /cat 7rpds 1Q a'AAryAa ovvtpLi^e /cat avvrjpfxoaev. 

ivravOa 8k iraXiv to tovtov /cat to OaTepov, 11 ivav- 

1 TO §€ €T€pOV "E, B. 2 €K Oia<f)OpaS ~U. 

3 i<f>a7TTOfi€vr)v -B. M tiller (1873) ; e^airropLevov -MSS. 

4 vvvTogiv -r, Epitome 1032 e. 5 Snjp/xijowo -e, u. 

6 <rr)v> fpvxqv -Bernardakis (vi, p. 531 : Addenda) from 
Epitome 1032 e. 

7 dnpa to -Wyttenbach from Epitome 1032 e ; aKparov 
-mss. 8 7) -omitted by f. 9 xoAe7r6t> ~ r - 

10 irpos -omitted in Epitome 1032 e. 

11 to erepov -E, B. 

a Cf. Aristotle, De Memoria 451 a 14-16 (tu^/x^ . . . 
<f>avrdap.aros . . . eft? ) and 450 a 27-b 11 with Themistius 
(Sophonias), Parva Nat., p. 5, 13 ad loc. (/zktJjlu? 8' eoTi^ tj 
ravrrjs [scil. <f>avraoias] (jlovt) koi awrypla). For fJLVTjfir) referred 
to fiovrj cf. Plato, Cratylus 437 b 3 and the note on the Stoic 
definition in De Comm. Not. 1085 a infra, oe fMovlfiovs 
Kal axcriKCLS Timwaeis ( = <f>avraoias)^ 

b As Thevenaz observed (L Ame du Monde, p. 82), 
Tcrnjmv . . . to ravrov to 8e darepov Ktvel (cf rfj ircpov hvvdfiei 
. . . fjLerapoXrjv ... in 1027 a infra) asserts what Plutarch 
criticized Xenocrates for asserting (see supra page 167, 
note a and 1013 d with notes /and g). For a similar incon- 
sistency see note /on 1024 d supra. 

c Cf. Aristotle, De Memoria 449 b 22-30, 450 a 19-22, 



by sameness and by difference again set moving b 
in the distinction of past and present, as it is in 
contact with diversity and identity at once. 

25. The fusion d that was carried out in the case of 
the body of the universe must be taken as a likeness 
of the proportion with which he e regulated soul. In 
the former case, because there were extremes, fire 
and earth, of a nature difficult to blend together or 
rather utterly immiscible and incohesive, he accord- 
ingly put between them air in front of the fire and 
water in front of the earth and blended these with 
each other first and then by means of these com- 
mingled and conjoined those extremes with them and 
with each other/ And in the latter case again he 

and 452 b 28-29 ; and the Stoic definition of memory men- 
tioned by Plutarch, De Sollertia Animalium 961 c. 

d For the noun ovvrrjgis in this sense cf. Proclus (com- 
menting on Timaeus 43 a 3), In Platonis Timaeum iii, p. 321, 
14-19 and p. 323, 9-12 (Diehl), where the erroneous variant 
ovvra£- appears in some mss. also. 

e i.e. god, the demiurge ; cf. £v \i£o<a Servos in the next 
sentence infra with 6 0€os eV /xcW Bets of Timaeus 32 b 4. 

f Timaeus 32 b 3-7. The " blending " and " mingling " of 
Plutarch's interpretation here (cf. also De Fortuna Romano- 
rum 316 e-f and the role assigned to air between fire 
and water in De Primo Frigido 951 d-e) are entirely ab- 
sent from Timaeus 31 b 4 — 32 c 4 ; and the reason given 
there for inserting two means between the extremes of fire 
and earth is purely mathematical (see 1016 r — 1017 a supra), 
as it remains in " Timaeus Locrus " 99 a-b and Albinus, 
Epitome xii, 2 (pp. 69, 14-71, 4 [Louis] = p. 167, 25-32 
[Hermann]). For other " physical " interpretations cf. 
Theon Smyrnaeus, p. 97, 8-12 (Hiller) ; Macrobius, In 
Somnium Scipionis i, vi, 23-34 (n.b. permisceri in 24) ; 
Chalcidius, Platonis Timaeus, pp. 86, 10-88, 7 (Wrobel) = 
pp. 71, 24—73, 4 (Waszink) ; Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum 
ii, pp. 39, 14r-42, 2 (Diehl) ; Philoponus, De Aeternitate 
Mundi xiii, 13 (pp. 514, 24-516, 23 [Rabe]) and In Nico- 



(1025) rias Swd/ietg koX aKporrjras dvrnrdXovs, avvrjya- 
yev ov 8lol avrtov, 1 aAA' ovoias ere pas (xera^v, rrjv 
f.L€V d[M€piarov rrpo rod ravrov 2 7rpo Se rod Oare- 
pov z rrjv fJLepujTrjV, k'oriv fj TrpoorjKovoav eKarepav 
iKarepa rasas' elra fiixOeloais* €K€wai,s eiTeyKepav- 

VVLLZVOS, OVTCOS TO 7T&V OVVV(f)rjV€ 5 rfjs ifwX^S 

etSos, d)S rjv dworov, €K hia<f)6pa)v opioiov e/c re 
ttoXXcjv ev drreipyaoLievos . 6 ovk ev Se rives elpfj- 
adai Xeyovau Svolllktov vrro rod HXdrojvos rrjv 
Oarepov (f>vocv, ovk dSeitrov ovoav aAAa 7 koX (f)iArjv 
C LierapoXrjs' LiaXXov 8e rrjv rod* ravrov, jjlovijjlov /cat 
8vojxerd^Xr]Tov ovoav, ov paSiOJS TTpooUodai pu^iv 
dXX aTrojdelodai Kal cfrevyew, oitcos arrXr] hia\xeivrf 


1 avrtov -B ; avrtov -E ; avrtov -all other mss. 

2 iTpo rod ravrov -Stephanus from Epitome 1032 p ; irpo 
ravrov -Leonicus ; rrpo rovrov -MSS. 

3 TTpo §€ rod iripov -E, B. 

4 fuxOcioas -Diibner. 

5 E, B, f, m, r, Escor. 72 (e over erasure) ; ovvvfav iv -e ; 
crvvv(f>7)v ev -u, Aldine ; ovvvfavev -Basiliensis ; ovvv<f>rjv€ ev 
-Stephanus ; ovvvfavev iv -Hutten. 

6 aTreipyaod^icvos -f ; d-nepyaod^vos -Epitome 1032 f. 

7 oAAct -omitted by E, B. 

8 rov -Maurommates ; rfjs -mss. 

9 Sia/zeVft -r. 

machi Arith. Introd. B xxiv, 11 (p. 28 [Hoche, 1867]) ; 
Nemesius, De Natura Hominis v (pp. 153-154 [Matthaei]) ; 
J. H. Waszink, Studien zum Timaioskommentar des Cal- 
cidius I (1964), pp. 74-82. 

° Cf. Philoponus, In Nicomachi Arith. Introd. B xviii, 
l=f, lines 12-16 (p. 18 [Hoche, 1867]) : ... to yap ravrov 
dhialperov. ... So some derived sameness in the psychogony 
from the indivisible being and difference from the divisible 
or identified the two pairs {cf. Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum 



united sameness and difference, contrary forces and 
antagonistic extremes, not just by themselves ; but 
by first interposing other beings, the indivisible in 
front of sameness and in front of difference the 
divisible, as each of the one pair is in a way akin to 
one of the other, a and by then making an additional 
blend with those between after they had been com- 
mingled h he thus fabricated the whole structure of 
the soul, c from what were various having made it as 
nearly uniform and from what were many as nearly 
single as was feasible. Some d say that it was not 
right of Plato to use " refractory to mixture " as an 
epithet of the nature of difference^ since it is not 
unreceptive of change but is positively friendly to it, 
and that it is rather the nature of sameness which, 
being constant and hard to change, does not readily 
submit to mixture but rejects and shuns it in order 

ii, p. 155, 20-23 [Diehl] ; Themistius, Be Anima, p. 11, 
10-12 ; A. E. Taylor, A Commentary on Plato's Timaeus, 
p. 128). 

6 See infra 1025 E (rrjv e/c rfjs dpLcptcrrov Kal rrjs utpiGTrjs o 
0€os vTTohoxfy Tco tolvto) Kal rep Oaripco avvearrjaev) and 1025 F 
(Setrai Tplrrjs twos olov vXr/s vTTo8€xopL€V7]s . . .). For the way in 
which Plutarch elicited this misinterpretation from Timaeus 
35 a 4-b 1 see notes a and c on 1012 c supra with the re- 
ference in the latter note to Proclus {In Platonis Timaeum 
ii, p. 159, 5-14 [Diehl]), who construed the. text correctly, 
inferring from it, however, contrary to Plutarch that (the 
intermediate) sameness and difference were combined first 
and the blend of them was then combined with (the inter- 
mediate) being. 

c Cf. to -nj? tpvxfjs ethos in Plat. Quaest. 1008 c, and for 
ovv€K€pdcraTo cfe ijllclv Travra Iheav of Timaeus 35 a 7 see supra 
1012 c with note b there and 1023 b, note c. 

d They have not yet been identified. 

• Timaeus 35 a 7-8 (see 1012 c supra and note c on 102 i d 



(1025) kclI elAiKpwrjs 1 Kal dvaAAotWos". ol 

iyKaAovvres dyvoovow on to /xev ravrov I8ea ra>v 
<boavTO)s ixovTOJV cart to Sc ddrepov 3 r&v 8ia- 
<t>6pa)s Kal tovtov fiev epyov, tov av difjrjrat, oV 
lordvai* /cat 5 dAAoiovv /cat 7roAAa 7rot€tv £k€lvov 8e 
cruvayeiv Kal ovviardvai Sid 6jjloi6t7)tos €/c 6 7roA- 
Aojv /tuW avaXajxfSavovTOS 1 fjuop^rjv Kal 8vvajMV. 

26. AuTat \xkv ovv 8vvdpb€ig tt)s tov iravros elac 

faxys € ^ &* Ovrjrd Kal 7radrjrd 7rapetaioucrat 8 op- 

yava (oojp,drojv). 9 d(f>dapra Kal avrd 10 [o-ojfJLdrojv] 11 

D iv ravrais 12 to rfjs SvaStKrjs 1 * Kal dopiarov p,€pi8os 

iTTK^aLverai 14, fxaXXov €l8os, (j6y 15 8e rfjs aTrXrjs Kal 

[AOVaSiKfjS dfJLv8pOT€pOV VTTo8€8vK€V. OX) fJLTJV p<X- 

8lojs av rig ovre rrddos avOpdyirov iravraTraoiv 

1 €iAr)Kpivf)s -f» m. r. 

2 ravra -E, B ; ravras -all other mss. (s -r). 

3 TO 8k €T€f>OV -E, B. 

4 hieardvai -u, Aldine. 

5 ouardvai oV ofioiorjjros (omitting Kal dWoiovv . . . Kal 
crwicrrdvai) -f, r. 

8 iK -E, B ; cVet -all other mss., Aldine. 

7 H. C. ; dvaXa^pdvovra -mss. ; aVaAa/i/tavoWow -Turnebus, 

8 E, B, f, m, r, Basiliensis ; rrapeioiovrat, -e, u, Escor. 72, 
Aldine; <at> rtaptiaiaaiv -B. Miiiler (1873); at o y els • . . 
irapeialaaiv -Bernardakis. 

9 <aa)^aTojv> -added by H. C. 

10 d<l>dapTa Kal avrd -mss. ; <f>6apra}v Kal avrd -Stephanus ; 
<<f>9apra>v> d<f>dapTOL avral -Diibner ; d<f>daproi Kal aural -B. 
Miiiler (1873) ; d<f>9aproi <<j>Bapra>v> avral -Bernardakis. 

11 [orcoftaTOJv] -deleted by H. C. 

12 rovrois -Stephanus. 

13 tyjs dirXrjs hvaoiKrjs -£ 

14 i7n$€p€T<u -B 1 (p remade to v -B 2 ). 



to remain simple and pure and unsubject to altera- 
tion. They who make these objections fail to under- 
stand, however, that sameness is the idea a of things 
identical and difference of things various and that the 
function of the latter is to drvide and diversify and 
make many whatever it touches but of the former 
is to unite and combine, 5 recovering from many by 
means of similarity a single form and force. 

26. Now, these are faculties of the soul of the sum 
of things d but enter besides e into mortal and passible 
organs <(of bodies^). Indestructible as they are 
themselves, in these faculties f the form of the dyadic 
and indefinite part makes itself more apparent, while 
{that) of the simple and monadic part is submerged 
in greater obscurity. ^ It would not be easy, how- 
ever, to observe in man either an emotion entirely 

a Cf. Plato, Sophist 255 e 5-6 and 256 a 12-b 3 (see 1013 d 
supra with note g there) and see iSc'a in 1023 c supra. 

b See note e on 1024 d supra with De Defectu Orac. 428 c 
referred to there and De E 391 c (. . . tclvtov 8e ttjv puyvvov- 
oav apxyv Oarepov &c ttjv hiaKpivovaav) ; and cf. Proclus, In 
Platonis Timaeum ii, p. 155, 14-20 and p. 158, 18-31 (Diehl). 

c See 1022 f supra with note c there ; cf. Plato, Phaedrus 
265 d 3-4 and Hermias, In Platonis Phaedrum, p. 171, 8-11 

d Cf. Timaeus 41 d 4-5 (rr)p tov navros ^vxty . . .) and De 
Virtute Morali 441 f (tJ t avdpa>nov fox?) pipos rj fiifirj/jia rijs 
rov iravros ovcra . . .). 

e The text has been thought to be corrupt chiefly because 
of the failure to recognize 7TapeiGiovo<u as a periphrastic 
present (cf. Weissenberger, Die Sprache Plutarchs I, p. 9 : 
H. Widmann, Beitrdge zur Syntax Epikurs, p. 135). 

/ i.e. in these that have entered into the mortal organs of 

The dyadic part is manifested as difference and the 
monadic as sameness (see 1024 d supra with note /there). 

16 <to> -added by Wyttenbach. 



(1025) aTTY/XXayfjievov Xoyiofxov Karavorjaeiev ovre oiavoias 
Kivqvw fj fJL-qhkv imGy/iias rj faXon/iias rj rov 
^alpovros 7) XyrrovpLtvov rrpocreoTt,. 816 rcov (f>iXo- 
o6<J)(jov ol /xev ra Trddrj Xoyovg 7roiovaLV ) J)$ Traaav 
imOvfilav Kal Xvttt]v Kal opyrjv Kploecs ovaas ' ol oe 
ras dperds aTrocjxxivovoi TTadrfTiKas, Kal ydp dv- 
ope ta 1 to <f>ofiovfA€vov /cat aax^poovvrj ro r)86fJL€Vov 
/cat SiKaioovvr] ro /cepSaAeov €ti>at. 2 /cat p,rjv #ea>- 
E prjriKfjs ye rrjs 0ux^ 9 ovorjs ajua /cat TrpaKriKrjs 
Kal 0€a)povG7]9 p,€v rd KadoXov rrparrovar\s Se 3 rd 
Ka&* e/caara Kal voeiv /xev e/ceti/a ravra S' alaOd- 

1 av&pla -B, u. 

2 ivelvat -Bernardakis. 

3 /cat 6za)povGT)s U€v rd KadoXov Trparrovorjs Se -f 1 (in margin), 
m 1 (in margin) ; Kal deupovaris Se (Se -omitted by E, B) ra Ka6 y 
€Kaara -mss., Aldine. 

See 1024 r supra (7; p.ev vor)ois klv^ols rov voovvros . . .)• 
For Bidvoia used of the intellectual faculty of the soul cf. 
Be Virtute Morali 441 c (Stoics) and 448 b-c (Plutarch him- 
self of to 0€ct>pT7TtKov, cf. 451 b [ro StavoTiriKov] and Plat. 
Quaest. 1004 d supra) ; Galen, Be Plac'dis Hippoc. et Plat. 
ix, 1 (p. 733, 11-14 [Mueller]). 

b Cf. Be Virtute Morali 443 b-c (. . . ro Ovuovfitvov iv 
ffltZv Kal imdvfiavv . . . ovk clttoikovv ovV aTreoxivuevov [sell, rov 
<f>povovvros\ • . . aAAa <$>voei p.kv i{;r]prr)fievov del 8e 6p.iXovv . . .). 

c Stoic doctrine (cf. Be Virtute Morali 441 c-d and 
446 f — 447 a, Be Sollertla Antmalium 961 d ; and Diogenes 
Laertius, vii, 111 [S.V.F. i, frag. 202 and iii, frags. 382, 
456, 459, 461, and 462]). 

d Cf. Be Virtute Morali 443 c-d (. . . rds rfQiKas dperds, ovk 
drraOelas ovaas dXXd ovp.a^rpias 7ra0a>v Kal fxeoorrjras, . . . [cf. 
Aristotle, Eth. Nic. 1104 b 24-26]) and Albinus, Epitome, 
xxxii, 1 (p. 155, 1-5 [Louis] = p. 185, 21-25 [Hermann]) : at 
TrAetaTat apcrat irepl nadr) ylvovrai . . . The doctrine is originally 
Peripatetic : cf. Aristotle, Eth. Nic. 1104 b 13-16, 1109 b 30, 



divorced from reason or a motion of the mind a in 
which there is present nothing of desire or ambition 
or rejoicing or grieving. b This is why some of the 
philosophers make the emotions varieties of reason, 
on the ground that all desire and grief and anger are 
judgments, while others declare that the virtues 
have to do with emotions , d for fearing is the province 
of courage and enjoyment that of sobriety and 
acquisitiveness that of justice/ Now, as the soul is 
at once contemplative and practical f and contem- 
plates the universals but acts upon the particulars g 
and apparently cognizes the former but perceives the 

and 1178 a 10-21 with Aspasius, Eth. Nic, p. 42, 21-24; 
[Aristotle], Magna Moralia 1206 a 36-b 29 ; Areius Didymus 
in Stobaeus, Eel. ii, 7, 20 (p. 142, 6-7 [Wachsmuth]); 
and the Pseudo-Pythagoreans, Metopus and Theages, in 
Stobaeus, Anth. iii, 1, 115, and 118 (pp. 71, 16-72, 1 and 
p. 81, 11-14 [Hense]). 

e For courage and sobriety cf. Eth. Nic. 1104 a 18-b 8 
and Magna Moralia 1185 b 21-32, and for justice cf. Eth. 
End. 1221 a 4 and 23-24 ; cf. also Stobaeus, Eel. ii, 7, 20 
(p. 141, 5-18 [Wachsmuth]) and Plutarch, De Virtute Morali 
445 a (Babut, Plutarque de la Vertu lUthique, p. 78 and 
Plutarque et le Stoicisme, pp. 331-332). 

' Cf Albinus, Epitome ii, 2 and iv, 8 (pp. 7, 1-2 and 21, 
4-8 [Louis] = pp. 153, 2-4 and 156, 13-17 [Hermann]); 
Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum iii, p. 335, 2-10 (Diehl) on 
Timaeus 43 c 7-d 4 ; Simplicius, De Anima, p. 95, 26-27. 
This bipartition, foreshadowed in Plato's Politicus 258 e 4-7, 
goes back to Xenocrates (frag. 6 [Heinze]) and Aristotle {Be 
Anima 407 a 23-25 and 433 a 14-15, Politics 1333 a 24-25) ; 
and despite the tripartition frequently used by the latter 
(Metaphysics 1025 b 25, Eth. Nic. 1139 a 26-31) it became 
the conventional Peripatetic distinction ([Plutarch], De 
Placitis, 874 f— 875 a = Dox. Graeci, pp. 273 a 25—274 a 
17 ; Diogenes Laertius, v, 28). 

9 Cf. Aristotle, Metaphysics 981 a 15-24 ; Eth. Nic. 1141 
b 16 and 1143 a 32-33. 



(1025) veodai SoKovarjs, 6 kolvos Xoyos del irepi re 
ravrov evrvyxdvojv rep Oarepco 1 /cat ravrw 2 rrepl 
ddrepov emxeipel fiev opois /cat 8iaipeoeoi X^P^" 
£etv to ev /cat rd rroXXd /cat to d/iepes /cat to 
fjLepLGTov* ov Svvarai 8e Kadaptos ev ovherepco yeve- 
odac Sta to /cat 4 rd? apxds evaAAa£ 5 epLTreTrXexOoa 
/cat KarajxepZxOai oV dXXrjXtov. /cat Sta rovro rrjs 
ovolas rr)v e/c rrjs dfiepiorov /cat rrjs fMepiorrjs 6 
Oeos V7To8ox^Jv Tto ravTtp* /cat rep Oarepco 1 orvv- 
F eorr\oev Iv* ev 8ia<f>opa rd£is yevrjrac' rovro yap 
fjV yeveoOai, err el x^pls rovrcov* ro fiev ravrov 
ovk elxe 8ia<f>opdv toor ov8e Ktvrjow ov8e yeveoiv 
to darepov 9 8e rd^cv ovk elxev toor ov8e ovoraoiv 
ov8e yeveoiv. /cat yap el rep ravrco ovp,fiefir}Kev 

1 to) irepco -E, B. 2 kcu tclvto -B. 

3 KClL TO fJL€pLOTOV "f, HI ; KOL TO OLfltplOTOV -Y 1 ; KCLt fltpiOTOV 

-E, B, e, u, Escor. 72, Aldine. 

4 teal -B ; omitted by all other mss. 

5 ivavaXXaf (sic) -f, m. 

6 E, B ; rep aural -all other mss., Aldine. 

7 f, m, r ; tw irepep -all other mss., Aldine. 

8 tovtcov -f, m, r, Aldine ; ovrcov -all other mss. 

9 to daTcpov -C.C.C. 99, Dubner ; OaTepov (to omitted) -e, 
u, m, r, Escor. 72, Aldine ; to frepov -E, B ; to OaTcpov . . . 
ot58e ovoraoiv ovoe yivtow -omitted by f. 

a See 1024 e-f supra with note /on page 237. 

b i.e. common to both the contemplative aspect and the 
practical (cf De Virtute Morali 443 e [. . . tov Xoyov . . . 
to p.€v . . . QccoprjTiKov ioTi to 8* . . . 7TpaKTLKov] with Aristotle, 
Politics 1333 a 25 and Eth. Nic. 1139 a 6-15 [cf Gauthier 
et Jolif ad loc, ii, pp. 440-442]) ; but it is so just because 
it is a blend of both principles, the one proceeding to uni- 
versal and the other to particulars, and so becomes votjols 
iv tols vor}Tols<i i.e. contemplative, and oo£a iv toZs alodrjTots, 
i.e. practical (1024 f supra with notes a and b there). So 
both Thevenaz (VAme du Monde, p. 31, note 159) and 



latter/ 1 the reason common to both, b as it is continu- 
ally coming upon difference in sameness and upon 
sameness in difference, tries with definitions and 
divisions c to separate the one and the many, that is 
the indivisible and the di visible, d but cannot arrive 
at either exclusively, 6 because the very principles 
have been alternately intertwined and thoroughly 
intermixed with each other. It was just for this 
reason that god made from being the compound of 
the indivisible and the divisible as a receptacle for 
sameness and difference/ that order might come to 
be in differentiation ; in fact, " come to be " amounted 
to this, since without these sameness had no dif- 
ferentiation so that it had no motion either and so 
no coming to be and difference had no order so that 
it had no coherence either and so no coming to be. 9 ' 

Helmer (De An. Proc, p. 53), whose interpretation he rejects 
and Hubert here adopts, are partially right. 

c See 1026 d infra : rj Sc opioriKr) SiW/zt? . . . kcu tovvclv- 

tLoV 7) $iaip€TLKr}. . . . 

d Cf. Plato, Sophist 245 a 8-9 with Iv r€ /cat d/j.€p4s in 
Theaetetus 205 e 2 and Parmenides 138 a 5-6 ; and Aristotle, 
Metaphysics 1054 a 20-23 on to Zv koX rd noWd as the 
indivisible and the divisible. 

• Cf. Plato, Philebus 15 d 4-8. 

f See 1025 b supra with note b there. 

9 See 1024 e supra with note 6 there. The next sentence 
shows that ^o>pis tovtwv means without the compound of 
indivisible and divisible being as a receptacle. The oi)8e in 
both occurrences of ov&e yevcotv, the second of which Hubert 
mistakenly daggers, is consecutive (cf. infra De Comm. Not. 
1070 e, note a) : ycVcat? presupposes motion (cf. Alexander, 
Quaestiones, p. 82, 3-4 [Bruns] ; Philoponus, De Generatione, 
p. 306, 3-4), but it also implies something coherent that 
comes to be (cf. in Adv. Colotem 1114 b the objection to 
infinitude as a principle for coming to be : rj 8' aVa*To? . . . 
a7TGpl\r]TTTO$, avrrjv dvaXvovoa kclI rapdrrovoa . . .). 



(1025) irepo) ctvat 1 rod irepov /cat rw irepco ttolXlv avrtp 2 
ravrov, ov8ev r) toiolvtt) jjudde^is dXXrjXwu rrotel 
yovipiov, dXXd Setrat rplrrjg twos olov vXrjs vtto- 
1026 SexofJLevyjs /cat SiaTidejjLevrjs vn dfJL(f>0T€pa)V. avrrj 
8* earlv rjv 7Tpd)rrjv avveoTTjoe ra> irepl rd vo7]rd 
ixovlfia) rod nepl rd acofiara kwtjtlkov to drreipov 

27. f f2? 8e <f)OJvrj tls €otw dXoyos /cat dorjp,aV" 
tos Xoyos 8e Xe£is iv (f>a)vfj or] jjlclvt lktj z 8iavoias, 
dppiovia 8e to* e/c <j>06yya>v /cat Staar^/xaTaw /cat 

1 €T€pov elvai -Benseler (De Hiatu, p. 529). 

2 f , m ; avrtb -E 1 , e, u (clutch), Escor. 72 ; raurcD -E 2 , 
B ; avros -r 1 . 

8 OT)fiaVTlK7} -B, u. 
4 8* Tl "U. 

a For ovfi^p-qKe in this sense see Plat. Quaest. 1003 f 
supra (rovro Be Kal rfj povahi aufi/Se/fy/ce). Even Aristotle 
at times uses ovfipdprjKe and gvpl^^kos simpliciter (De Anima 
402 a 8-10, De Part. Animal. 643 a 30-31 with Metaphysics 
1025 a 30-32) in referring to what he calls more exactly avfifie- 
faKOTa kolO* avrd (Anal. Post. 75 b 1-2 and 83 b 19-20, Meta- 
physics 995 b 19-20). Cf. 1018 d infra (chap. 14) : "Siov ra> 
reXevralo) crvpLpePrjKe, ra> kCJ . . . . 

b i.e. the intercommunion of ideas in Plato, Sophist 254 
d 4—259 b 7 (cf. 256 b 1 and 259 a 7 for the term /aeflcf is) : 
by such " participation " in difference sameness like all the 
ideas is different from difference as it is from all the others, 
and difference like all the others is the same as itself by 
41 participation " in sameness (cf. Proclus, In Platonls 
Parmenidem, cols. 756, 33-757, 8 [Cousin 2 ]). For the ideas, 
sameness and difference, see supra 1025 c with note a there. 

c In Timaeus 48 e 3 — 49 a 6 the yeveaecvs v-nohoxr} ko! 
Tidrjvr) is introduced as a rpirov yevos ; and Aristotle refers 
to his substrate of contraries, themselves dnaOij vn dXXrjXatv, 
i.e. to matter, as rpirov n (Metaphysics 1069 b 8-9 and 
1075 a 30-32, cf. Physics 190 b 33—191 a 1). Plutarch in 
De hide 370 f — 371 a also ascribes to Plato rpirwv nvd 
<j>vmv between ravrov and 8dr€pov (see note c on 1015 b supra) ; 



For, even if it is a characteristic ° of sameness to be 
different from difference and of difference again to 
be the same as itself, mutual participation of this 
kind b has no fruitful result ; but a third term is 
required, a kind of matter serving as a receptacle for 
both and being modified by them, c and this it is that 
he first compounded when with that which abides 
about the intelligibles d he bounded the limitlessness 
of that which is motive in the case of bodies. e 

27. As some sound is not speech and not significant 
but speech is an utterance in sound that signifies 
thought/ and as concord is what consists of sounds 
and intervals and a sound is one and the same thing, 5 ' 

but there he takes ravrov to be the good principle and 
ddrepov the evil, i.e. the evil " world-soul " that he professes 
to find in the Laws and which in the present essay (1014 
d-e supra) he identifies instead with the " divisible being " 
here compounded with the " indivisible " to be itself the 
" third term," the receptacle for both ravrov and Odrepov. 

d See note e on pages 228 f. supra. 

6 See 1015 E supra (ttjv Kivr)TtK7)v rijs vXrjs koll 7T€pl rd 
aco/xara yiyvo[iivr\v pi.cpiarrjv . . . kivtjoiv) with notes b and c 
there and 1027 a infra (to) p,kv ivl ttjv dneipiav opioavros tv* 
ovaia yivyrai Trcparos fieTavxovaa) with note a there. 

' Cf. S.V.F. iii, p. 213, 18-21 and ii, p. 48, 28-30. The 
use of <f>a)vri for " sound " in the generic sense (so Plat. 
Quaest. 1000 b, 1001 f, and 1006 b ; cf. Timaeus 67 b 2-4 
and Bivisiones Aristoteleae § 30 [24] = pp. 37, 23-38, 14 
[Mutschmann]) is called catachrestic by [Plutarch], De 
Placitis 902 b = Dox. Graeci, p. 408 a 3-8 (cf. Aristotle, 
De Anima 420 b 5-16 and 27-33). For speech (Aoyo?) as 
articulate sound that is " significant see also Plat. Quaest. 
1009 D-E. 

9 Cf. Nicomachus, Harmonices Man. 12 (Musici Scrip- 
tores Graecij p. 261, 4-6 [Jan]) ; Aristoxenus, Elementa 
Harmonica i, 15, 15-16 with P. Marquard's note ad loc, 
pp. 224-227 ; Theon Smyrnaeus, pp. 49, 18-20 from Adrastus 
and 60, 13-16 (Hiller). 



(1026) <j>66yyos fiev lv /cat ravrov StaarT^a 8k <f>66yya)v 
ireporrjs /cat 8ia<f)opd, pa^devrojv 8e rovrcov co8r] 
yiyverai /cat fiiXos' ovrojs to TTaOrjriKov tyjs ipvxfjs 
aopiorov rjv /cat doTdOfirjrov, effi ojplcrdr) neparos 
eyyevopievov 1 /cat €l8ovs ra> pLepiorco /cat navro- 
hamtp rrjs Kivrjaews. avXXafiovoa 8e to ravrov /cat 
to Odrepov* 6\ioi6rr\ot koX dvopLOLorrjcnv apidpiwv 
B €/c 3 Siacfropas opboXoytav dnepyaoapLevajv 4 t>ojrf re 
rod rravros iorw €fji<f>pajv /cat apuovta /cat Xoyos 
aycjv 7T€i9oZ fjLefjuyjjLevrjv* dvdyKrjv, tjv elfiappLevrjv 
oi iroXXol koXovoiv, 'Ea^eSo/cA^s* 8e <f>c\iav 6p,ov 
/cat vcZkos, 'Hpa/cActros' 8e TraXivrpoTrov 1 dpp,ovlr)v 

1 iyyivoficvov -f, m, r. 

2 €T€pOV -E, B, u. 

3 KoX -r. 

4 E, B ; €7T€pyaoafX€va)v -e, u, Escor. 72, Aldine ; dncpya- 
cficvojv -f, m, r. 

5 E, B ; r wv -all other mss., Aldine. 

6 fJL€fliyfl€VQ)V -r. 

7 mss. (so in De Tranquillitate Animi 473 f — 474 a all 
mss. except D, which has iraXlvrovos as do all mss. in De hide 
369 b) ; naXtvrovov -Turnebus. 

a Cf Aelian Platonicus and Thrasyllus in Porphyry, In 
Ptolemaei Harmonica, p. 35, 15-22 and p. 91, 13-18 (During) ; 
Bacchius, Isagoge 6 (Musici Scriptores Graeci, p. 292, 20-21 
[Jan]). In 1020 e infra it is defined as nav to 7T€pt€x6fi€vov 
vrro bveiv </>66yyo)v dvofiolwv ttj rdoei. 

5 So also Quaest. Conviv. 747 c ; cf to ck <f>06yywv koX 
BiaaTTjfjLarcDv Kai xpovuyv cvyK^tfievov in Bacchius, Isagoge 78 
(Musici Scriptores Graeci, p. 309, 13-14 [Jan]) and the 
objection of Aristoxenus, Elementa Harmonica i, 18, 16-19, 1. 

e See the end of the preceding chapter with note e on 
1026 a and 1016 c supra with note e on page 203. 

d Probably a reference to similar and dissimilar numbers, 
for which cf Theon Smyrnaeus, pp. 36, 12-37, 6 (Hiller) 
and Iamblichus, In Nicomachi Arithmeticam Introductionem, 



an interval the diversity and difference of sounds. 
and the mixture of these results in song and melody/ 
so the affective part of the soul was indeterminate and 
unstable and then was bounded when there came to 
be limit and form in the divisible and omnifarious 
character of the motion. And, once having compre- 
hended sameness and difference with the similarities 
and dissimilarities of numbers d that produced con- 
sensus out of dissension, it is for the sum of things 
rational life and concord e and reason guiding neces- 
sity that has been tempered with persuasion f and 
which by most people is called destiny,^ by Empe- 
docles love together with strife , h by Heraclitus 
concord of the universe retroverse like that of lyre 

pp. 82, 10-18 and 84, 10-88, 15 (Pistelli) ; see 1017 e infra : 
at ov^vyiai rwv ofioicov ecrovrai npos rovs opoLovs. 

• See 1030 c infra ; for £0117 . . . €p,<f>pojv cf. Timaeus 36 E 
3-4, quoted by Plutarch at 1016 b supra. 

1 An inexact reminiscence of Timaeus 47 e 5 — 48 a 5 ; 
cf. Plutarch's Phocion ii, 9 (742 e), and for his interpretation 
of avayiai in the Timaeus see 1014 d — 1015 a supra. 

9 Cf. Iamblichus, Be Mysteriis viii, 7 (p. 269, 13-14 
[Parthey]) and Corpus Hermeticum xvi, 11 (ii, p. 235, 22 
[Nock-Festugiere]). Plutarch himself substitutes avayicq 
for clfiapiievY) (see supra 1015 a, note e) ; cf. also [Plutarch], 
Be Placitis 884 e-f (Box. Graeci, p. 321 a 6-9 and p. 322 
a 1-3) and Cicero, Be Natura Beorum i, 55 (" ilia fatalis 
necessitas quam diiapnevrjv dicitis "). 

* Empedocles, frag. A 45 (D.-K.) ; cf. Empedocles, frag. 
B 115, 1-2 (D.-K.) with Hippolytus, Refutatio vii, 29, 23 
(p. 214, 17-24 [Wendland]) and frags. A 32 and A 38 (D.-K.) 
with Simplicius, Phys., p. 197, 10-13, p. 465, 12-13, and 
p. 1184, 5-17. Zeller's estimate of this evidence (Phil. 
Griech. i, 2, p. 969, note 2) is still valid despite such attempts 
at rehabilitation and embellishment as that of J. Bollack's 
(Empe'docle i [Paris, 1965], pp. 153-158 and 161); cf. 
H. Schreckenberg, Ananke (Mtinchen, 1964), pp. 111-113 
with note 97, 



(1026) Koafiov OKcocTrep Xvprjs Kal t6£ov, HapjieviSyjs 8e 
<f>a>s Kal o kotos, 'Avatjayopas Se vovv /cat dneipiav, 
Tttopoaorp-qs Se 6eov Kal Sai/xova, rov [lev *£lpo- 
liaahr]v koXcjv top S' ' Apeifidviov } JZvpnTiSrjs 8' 
ovk 6p9ws dvrl rov avpirAeKTiKov rto Sia^evKTLKo) 

evs €tT avayKrj cpvoeos eire vovs pporojv 
C /cat yap dvdyKrj Kal vovs eartv rj SirjKovaa Sid 
navrojv &vvafJLis. Alyvnrioi fxev ovv fivOoXoyovv- 


1 apifidviov -B 1 ; dpt/xanov -all other mss. 

2 7JT€ -U. 

3 Stephanus ; (fivoeajs -mss. 
4 vovs -omitted by r. 

a Heraclitus, frag. B 51 (D.-K. and Walzer) = frags. 45 
and 56 (Bywater) : cf. Box. Graect, p. 303 b 8-10 (. . . 
€LfiapfX€vr)v 8c Xoyov in tt}s ivavrtobpo/jLLas Sr)p.LOVpy6v tojv ovtcov) 
and Diogenes Laertius, ix, 7 (p. 440, 2-3 [Long]). Both in 
Be Tranquillitate Animi 473 f — 474 a and in Be hide 369 
b the quotation from Heraclitus is followed by that of Euri- 
pides, frag. 81, 3-4 (Nauck, Trag. Graec. Frag. 2 , p. 369). 
Neither in the former of these nor in the present passage is 
there reason to doubt that Plutarch wrote iraXivrpoiros, whe- 
ther it was this or iraXlvrovos* as in the De hide, that Hera- 
clitus had written (cf. W. K. C. Guthrie, A History of Greek 
Philosophy i [Cambridge, 1962], p. 439, note 3 with refer- 
ences ; M. Marcovich, Heraclitus [Merida, 1967], pp. 125- 

6 See Plutarch, Adv. Colotem 1114 b. Cf. Simplicius, 
Phys., p. 38, 18-24 (quoting Alexander) ; p. 25, 15-16 ; 
pp. 30, 14-31, 2 ; and pp. 179, 20-180, 12 with Parmenides, 
frag. B 8, 53-61 and B 9 (D.-K.). The belief that the second 
part of Parmenides' poem, called the Koafioyovla by Plutarch 
in Amatorius 756 e, was meant to be a valid account of the 
phenomenal world (Adv. Colotem 1114 c-e) goes back to 
Aristotle (Metaphysics 986 b 31-34; cf. Cherniss, Crit. 
Presoc. Phil., p. 48, note 192) ; but Plutarch is alone in 
identifying its two " principles " with dyay/07, for which see 


and bow, a by Parmenides light and darkness,* by 
Anaxagoras intelligence and infinitude, 6 and by 
Zoroaster god and spirit, the former called by him 
Oromasdes and the latter Areimanius. d Euripides 
has erred in using the disjunctive instead of the 
copulative conjunction in the prayer, 

Zeus, whether natural necessity 
Or the intelligence of mortal men/ 

for the power that pervades all things / is both 
necessity and intelligence. Now, the Egyptians in 
a mythical account say enigmatically that, when 

rather Parmenides, frag. B 10, 6-7 (D.-K) and frag. A 37 
(p. 224, 7-9 [D.-K.]) with frag. B 12 (D.-K.). 

c See De hide 370 e (vovv kox dneipov). Of. Theophrastus, 
Phys. Opin., frag. 4 (Dox. Graeci, p. 479, 14-15) ; and for 
Plutarch's direipla here cf. Aristotle, Metaphysics 988 a 28. 
Against the identification with dvdyta) see Plutarch himself 
in Pericles iv, 6 (154 n-c) ; but on the other hand see De 
Defectu Orac. 435 f ( . . . to kojt dvdyKrjv . . . jactiojv del . . .) 
and Aristotle, Metaphysics, 985 a 18-21 (cf. Cherniss, Crit. 
Presoc. Philos., pp. 234-235). 

d See supra 1012 e with note c there on " Zaratas " ; 
De hide 369 d — 370 c ; and Diogenes Laertius, i, 8. Cf. 
Bidez-Cumont, Les Mages Hellenists i, pp. 58-66 and ii, 
pp. 70-79 ; and J. Hani, Rev. Etudes Grecques, Ixxvii (1964), 
pp. 489-525. 

e Euripides, Troiades, 886. For the " correction " sug- 
gested by Plutarch in Stoic fashion cf. Babut, Plutarque et 
le Stoicisme, p. 141. 

/ For this phrase cf. Cornutus, xi (p. 11, 21 [Lang]) and 
[Aristotle], De Mundo 396 b 28-29. It is used of the Platonic 
world-soul by Atticus, frag, viii (Baudry) = Eusebius, Praep. 
Evang. xv, 12, 3 (ii, p. 375, 17-19 [Mras]), though it is Stoic 
in origin : cf. Plutarch, De hide 367 c with Diogenes 
Laertius, vii, 147 ; [Plutarch], De Placitis 882 a and 885 a 
(Dox. Graeci, p. 306 a 5-8 and p. 323 A 1-6) ; Alexander, 
De Mixtione, p. 225, 1-3 (Bruns) ; Plotinus, Enn. m, i, 4, 
lines 1-9. 



(1026) res 1 alvirrovrai, rov "Qpou 2 St/071/ StfyXovros, 3 rco 
fiev narpl to trvevpia Kal to atpa ttj 8e pryrpl ttjv 
adptca Kal ttjv m/zeA^y TTpocrvepLrjdfjvai. tt\s 8e 
ifrvxys ovSev fiev elXiKpives ov8* aKpaTOv ov8e x<*>pls 
OLTToXetTTeTaL Ttov dXXojv appovit] yap d<j>avr)s <f>a- 
veprjs KpeiTTOJV KaO* 'Hpa/cActrov, iv fj ra? Sta- 
cf>opas Kal ra? eTepoT7]Tas 6 payvvcov Oeos eKpvifje 
Kal KaTeSvoev ifi<f>alv€Tai 8e opuos avTrjs to> pev 
aXoyco to rapa^cDSes" ra> 8e XoyiKto to €VTaKT0V y 
Tais 8* alodrfoeoi to KaTrjvayKaopLevov tco 8e va> 
D to avTOKpaTes . rj 8e opiOTiKr) 8vvapus to KadoXov 
Kal to dpL€pes 8 id ovyyeveiav ay ana, Kal tovvov- 
tLov rj 8iaip€TLKr) irpos Ta Kad* e/caara <j>ep€Tai ra> 
pbepioTcp' xatpet 8e oXottjtl* 81a to tovtov €<f>rj8€- 
Tal (re)* pb€TafSoXrf 8id to OaTepov. 1 ovx rJKiaTa 
8e rj T€ Trpos to koXov 8ia<j>opd Kal to aloxpov r\ 

1 fxv8oXoyovvr at -r. 2 r ; a>pov -all other mss. 

3 Diibner ; o<j>Xovros -mss. 

4 6X6tt)ti -Bury (Proc. Cambridge Philol. Soc, N.S. i 
[1950-51], p. 31) ; 5Xov rfj -mss. 

5 i<t>rjS€Tat <re> -Bury (loc. cit.) ; ty y a Scitcu -mss. 

6 f, m, r, Aldine ; /iCTa/JoA^s -all other mss. 
' 8ia TO €T€pOV -E, B. 

See De hide 358 e and De Libidine et Aegritudine 6 (vii, 
p. 7, 9-16 [Bernardakis] = vi, 3, p. 56, 7-20 [Ziegler-Pohlenz, 
1966]) ; cf. J. Hani, Rev. fihides Grecques, lxxvi (1963), 
pp. 111-120. 

6 See 1025 d supra with note b there and Plat. Quaest. 
1008 c supra. In De Tranquillitate Animi 474 a, De Sol- 
lertia Animalium 964 d-e, and De hide 369 c it is rather 
human affairs or life, nature, and the sublunar world that 
are said to contain nothing pure or unmixed. 

c Heraclitus, frag. B 54 (D.-K. and Walzer) = frag. 47 
(By water). 

d Cf. T17V 8c rapax^V Kal dvorjrov (1014 c supra) and r^icbv 
to rapax<i>&es (Quaest. Conviv. 746 a). 


Horus was convicted, the breath and blood were as- 
signed to his father and the flesh and fat to his 
mother. Of the soul, however, nothing remains 
pure or unmixed or separate from the rest, & for 
stronger than manifest concord according to Hera- 
clitus is the unmanifest, c wherein god, making the 
mixture, sank and concealed the differences and the 
diversities ; but nevertheless turbulence makes itself 
evident in the irrational part of it d and orderliness in 
the rational, 6 necessitation in the senses f and inde- 
pendence in the intelligence. 9 ' Its faculty for 
defining has a fondness for the universal and the 
indivisible by reason of kinship, and contrariwise that 
for dividing is moved to particulars by the divisible h ; 
and it rejoices in integrity by reason of sameness 
<and> exults in change by reason of difference.* 
More than anything else, however, the dissension in 
regard to fair and foul and again in regard to pleasant 

e Cf. TO VO€pOV KaX ... TO T€TayfJL€VOV (1016 C SUpTO). 

* Cf. Plato, Timaeus 42 a 3-b 1 and 69 c 7-d 6 ; the 
senses are dependent upon external stimuli (Timaeus 43 c 
4-7 and Philebus 33 d 2—34 a 9). 

Cf. De Facie 945 d (6 h* vovs . • . avroKpdrcop) and De 
Amove Prolis 493 d-e (. . . avroKpaT-qs Xoyos) with Anaxa- 
goras, frag. B 12 (ii, p. 37, 18-20 [D.-K.]) and Plato, Cratylus 
413 c 5-7. 

h See 1025 E supra (emxctpct M* v Spots Kal Biaipcaeat, x w P l " 
fei»> ... to dficpcs Kal to pLepiarov . . .) and cf. Iamblichus, 
Be Comm. Math. Scientia, p. 65, 11-15 and 23-24 (Festa). 
For to KadoXov Kal to apepes cf. Aristotle, Anal. Post. 100 b 
2 ; Platonic diaeresis does not extend to tcl k<iQ* licaora, of 
course, save in the sense of " infimae species " sometimes 
given this term by Aristotle (Anal. Post. 97 b 28-37, De Part. 
Animal. 642 b 35-36). 

* Of the many emendations proposed for the corrupt text 
of this clause only Bury's, which is here adopted, has any 
plausibility in the context. 



(1026) re irpos to tjSv /cat to dXyetvov avQis ol tz t&v 
ip(x)VTO)v evOovaiaoyLol /cat TTTorjoeis /cat Sta/za^at 
rod <f>iXoKaXov Trpos to aKoXaoTov ivSeiKVWTai to 

/XIKTOV €K T€ TTJS delas /Cat OLTTdOoVS €/C T€ TTJS 

dvr)T7Js /cat rrepl ra aw/JLara 7radr]Trjs fAeptSos, Sv 
/cat avrog ovofid^ei, to fjuev erndvpiiav €jjl(J)Vtov 

E TjSoVOJV TO S' €7T€lOaKT0V 86£aV €<f)L€[JL€VrjV TOV dpl~ 

otov. to yap 7Ta9rjTLKov aVaStSeocrtv e£ iavTTjs 

rj lfwXV> T °V ^ V °V [J>€T€OX€V dlTO TTJS KptiTTOVOS 

apx^js iyyevofievov. 1 

28. Trjs 8e ScTrXfjs Koivojvias TavTr)$ ovSe rj 
7T€pl tov ovpavov drr^AAa/CTat <f>voLs, aAAa 2 irepop- 
p€7Tovaa vvv [lev 6p6ovTai z ttj tclvtov 7T€pi6hca 

KpOLTOS ixOVOTj /Cat BlOLKVpepva TOV KOOfAOV carat 4 

Se tis xP° vov P^olpa /cat yeyovev 7}8r] 7roAAa/ctS", ev 

1 mss. ; iyyivoficvov -Aldine. 2 dXX' r) -r. 

3 E, B ; oparai -all other mss., Aldine. * coti -B. 

a See Be Virtute 447 c {ovx zvos tlvos ixeTafioXrjs dAAa ovtiv 
a/u.a tia-XO* K€LL Sia<£opas) with Qvomodo Adulator ab Amico 
Internoscatur 61 d-f ; cf Galen, De Placitis Hippoc. et Plat. 
iv, 7 (p. 401, 7-8 [Mueller]). 

b See 1029 E infra (ra> Kpariarco Kal QeioraTtp /xe'pet) and 
supra 1024 a (to yap voepov . . . itceTvo juev . . . airadks • • •) 
with note a on page 215. 

c See 1023 d supra (to TraQr\TiKov vtto rcov rreoi to oa>fia 
ttoiott)to)v). For this part of the human soul as mortal cf. 
Timaeus 61 c 7-8 and 69 c 7-e 4, where, however, it is a 
confection of the " created gods " (cf. also Timaeus 42 d 5- 
e 4) and not derived from " the divisible being " of the psy- 
chogony as it is according to Plutarch (see with what follows 
in this paragraph 1024 a supra [. . . ovx *T€pav ovaav r) rrjv 
. . . avfjaradrj ra> alo6r)Ttp Kivrjctv . . .] ; cf. Jones, Platonism 
of Plutarch, p. 12, note 36 and p. 85, note 41). 

d Plato, Phaedrus 237 d 7-9, cited by Plutarch in Quaest. 
Conviv. 746 d, where as here he writes iirelaaKrov instead of 
Plato's hflitrtfTos and where he explicitly identifies the latter 


and painful and the raptures and ecstasies of passion- 
ate lovers and the conflicts of probity with in- 
continence a make plain the mixture of the divine and 
impassive part b with the part that is mortal and 
passible in the case of bodies. Of these Plato him- 
self denominates the latter an innate desire of 
pleasures and the former an extraneous sentiment 
longing for what is best, d for the soul puts forth of 
herself the affective part e but partook of intelligence 
because it got into her from the superior principle/ 

28. From this dual association the nature of the 
heavens is not exempt either ; but it inclines this 
way or that, at present being kept straight by the 
dominant revolution of sameness g and piloting the 
universe, whereas there will be and often has already 
been a period of time in which its prudential part 
with Xoyos and the former with irados- For the meaning of 
S6£a in this passage of the Phaedrus cf. G. J. de Vries, A 
Commentary on the Phaedrus of Plato, p. 85 ad 237 e 2-3 
and J. Sprute, Der Begriff der Doxa in der platonischen 
Philosophie (Gottingen, 1962), p. 113. 

* See 1027 a infra (ovp.<f)VTov €\ovaav iv iavTrj ttjv rod kclkov 
fxolpav) and 1024 c supra (77 ydp aladrjTiKT} kivtjois, Ihia ipvxf}s 
ovoa, . . .) with note / there. Contrast De Virtute Moral I 
451 A (c5<77T€/) €K pi^rjs tov nadrjTtKov tt}s aapKOS dvapXaard- 

f See 1024 c supra (6 be vovs • . . cyycvojievos Sc rfj i/jvxfj) 
and 1023 d supra (vovv . . . avrfj . . . rj ttjs vorjTrjs /xeflefi? 
dpxrjs €fj,7T€7TOLrjK€) ; and see also 1016 c supra (6 deos . . . 
Ka6o.7T€p ctbos ... to vo€p6v . . . d</>* oivTov Trapacrxwv . . .) with 
Plat. Quaest. 1001 c and note b there. There is no reason to 
suppose, however, as Thevenaz does (VAme du Monde, p. 
71), that by " the superior principle " here Plutarch meant 
to ev which in 1024 d supra he called the principle of same- 
ness ; but see infra 1027 a, note a on page 263. 

g Cf Timaeus 36 c 7-d 1 (nparos 8* Zocotctv rfj ravrov . . . 
7T€pL(f)opd) ; on the " revolution of sameness see supra 
1024 K,'note d. 



(1026) fj to /lev (frpovi/jiov d/ijSAiWrcu /cat KaTahapOdvei 
Arjdrjs eiiTTLTrXdyievov 1 tov olk€lov to Se aco/xart 
avv7]0€s i£ dpx^js /cat crv/JLTradts c^eA/cerat /cat 
fiapvvet /cat aVeAt'aact tt]v ev Se^ta tov iravTos 
7Top€Lav dvapprj^ai S' ov Swarat TravTosnaoiv > 
F aAA' dvi]V€yK€v avdis ra /JeATtO) /cat dvefiXeijje 
Trpos to TTapdheiyjia deov crvvemoTpecfyovTos /cat 
1027 ovvaTTevdvvovTos . 2 ovtcos ivSetKWTai iroXXaxoOev 
rjjjuv to firj tt&v epyov elvat deov ttjv ifwx'fjv dXXd 
avfJL(f)VTov exovaav iv eavTjj ttjv tov /ca/coO fioipav 

V7T* €K€LVOV 8iaK€KOOfJLfj<j6ai, TW fJi€V £vl TTJV aVe"t- 

1 €fl7nfJL7T\dfJL€VOV -f, m. 


2 £corr. (i t€t (TVV€n -E 1 ), B ; ovverrevdvvovTos -all other 
mss., Aldine. 

° C/. Politicus 273 c 6-d 1, quoted by Plutarch at 1015 d 
supra, and with Plutarch's d/z£AuWrcu c/. d^Xvrepov in 
Politicus 273 b 3. In Phaedrus 248 c 7 the subject of AtJ^j 
t€ Kal KaKias nX-qodctaa papwOij is the individual soul. In 
neither case does Plato mention " falling asleep " ; but in 
1024 b supra (see note a there) " dreamlike " is applied to 
the precosmic soul, and Aibinus speaks of the soul of the 
universe or its intelligence as being awakened by god, who 
turns it to himself (Epitome x, 3 and xiv, 3 = pp. 59, 6 
and 81, 6-7 [Louis] = pp. 165, 2 and 169, 31-33 [Hermann]). 
Cf. R. M. Jones, Class. Phil., xxi (1926), pp. 107-108 ; and 
J. H. Loenen, Mnemosyne, 4 Ser. x (1957), pp. 51-52, who 
argues that Aibinus got this notion from Plutarch. 

* See 1024 A supra (. . . rrjv SogacmKTjv . . . Kal ovixnaOij 
to> alodr)Ta> Kiirqaiv . . . v<f>€GTcbaav dioiov . . .). 

c Cf. Timaeus 36 c 5-6 (ttjv p,€v or) ravrov . . . iirl oefia 
ireprfyayev . . ., on which cf. Lustrum, iv [1959], pp. 220-221 
[ # 1039]) and Plutarch, D# hide 369 c (ovtlv avrnrdXajv hvvd- 
fiewv, ttjs /uci> €7u ra oe£i<z . . . ixfyrjyovfidvrjs rrjs 5* €/x7raAiv dva- 
<rrp€<l>ovor)s Kal dvaK\u>or)s)* 

d Cf. Politicus 270 d 3-4 and 286 b 9, and see 1015 a 
supra with note e there. 

• For the " pattern " see supra 1023 c (page 223, note e ) 



becomes dull and falls asleep, filled with forgetf ill- 
ness of what is proper to it, a while the part intimate 
with body and sensitive to it from the beginning b 
puts a heavy drag upon the right-hand course of the 
sum of things c and rolls it back d without being able, 
however, to disrupt it entirely, but the better part 
recovers again and looks up at the pattern e when god 
helps with the turning and guidance/ Thus many 
considerations make it plain to us that the soul is not 
god's work entirely (J but that with the portion of evil 
inherent in her h she has been arranged by god, who 

and cf Plato, Republic 540 a 7-9 of the individual soul. The 
44 pattern " here for Plutarch is not god or the 44 thoughts of 
god " (cf Jones, Platonism of Plutarch, p. 102, note 72), 
whereas according to Albinus in Epitome xiv, 3 (p. 81, 6-9 
[Louis] = p. 169, 31-35 [Hermann]) the soul or its intelligence 
is awakened by god ottojs aTrofiXzirovoa 77730? rd vorjra avrov 
Bexrjrax rd etBrj /cat rds [AOp<f>ds, £<f>i€p,€vr) ra>v €K€lvov vorjfidrcjv 
(c/. in x, 3, p. 59, 2-4 [Louis] = p. 164, 35-37 [Hermann]). 

f Cf Politicus 269 c 4-6 (to ndv toSc rork p,kv avros 6 0€O9 
avfJL7To8Tjy€i 7Top€v6}i€vov Kol ovyKVKXel . . .), 270 a 3, and 273 
e 1-4 ; and Republic 617 c 5-7 (tt}v /xev KAcoflco rrj 8cfia x €L P L 
€<$>a7TTOfJ>€vr)v avv€7Tiarp€^>€iv . . . tt)j> lfct> 7T€pL<j>opav). Plutarch 
in De Defectu Orac. 426 c speaks of the gods rcov Koa^icov . . . 
rij <f>v<T€c ovvairtvdvvovras iekclcttov. In the present passage the 
unexpressed object of avv€7ncrrp€<f>ovTos kolI GwanevOvvovros is 
to be understood from r-qv . . . rod -navrds tropeCav supra, though 
the phrase has sometimes been interpreted in the light of 
els iavrov iirurrpefei (1024 d supra with note a there) as 
44 conversion " of the soul or intelligence itself (Jones, Platon- 
ism of Plutarch, p. 83, note 35 ; Witt, Albinus, p. 131 ; 
Thevenaz, VAme du Monde, p. 72). In De hide 376 b it is 
the rational motion of the universe itself that eVioTpe'^et nork 
Kal irpoadyercu . . . 7T€c6ou<xa rr\v . . . rv<j>a)V€iov ctr avOcs . . . 
dveorpcipe. . . . 

9 See 1014 c and 1016 c cited in note/, page 223 supra ; 
cf. J. H. Loenen, Mnemosyne, 4 Ser. x (1957), p. 47. 

h See supra 1026 e (with note e there), 1015 a (with note/ 
there) and 1015 e. 



(1027) piav opiaavros Iv ovaia yivryrai ireparos /xera- 
oxovaa rfj 8e ravrov /cat rfj irepov 1 SrW/xa rd£iv 
"i.l ixera^oXrjV /cat 8ia<j>opdv /cat o/xotoT7jra crt>/x/xt- 
i;avTos ttolgi Se tovtols, cbs glwgtov rjv, Koivcovlav 
7Tp6s dXXrjXa /cat cj)iXiav epyaaapbevov St' dpidficov 
/cat apjjiovias. 

29. Tlepl <Lv el /cat ttoXXolkls dKrjKoare /cat 770A- 
Aot9 ivrervx^Kare Xoyots /cat ypafipLaoiv, ov ^etpov 
cart /ca/xe fipaxecos SteAfetv, TTpoeKdefievov ro rod 

B nAarcuvos* " fiiav d<f>elXe ro 2 rrpoorov dno rravros 
fjLOipav, fierd Se ravrrjv dcfrrjpeL oirrXaoLav ravrrjs, 
rrjv S' av rpirrjv r)pLioXiav [lev rrjs Seurepas rpi- 
7rAaatW Se rfjs rrpcor'qs, rerdprrjv Se rrjs Sevrepas 
SittXtjv, 7TefJL7Trrjv Se rpiTrXrjv rrjs rpirrjs, rr)v Se 3 
€KT7jv rrjs rrpcorrjs OKrarrXaoiav , efiSofirjv Se* errra- 
KaieiKooaTrXaoiav* rrjs TTpojrrjs. fierd Se ravra 
oweTrXiqpovTO rd re SnrXdoia /cat rpiTrXdoia Sta- 
ar^/xara, pcoipas ere eKeldev drTorepLVoov /cat ridels 
els ro fiera^v rovrcov, ooor ev eKaorco Staar^/xart 
8vo elvai fieaor-qras, rr)v fiev ravrop fiepei roov 
aKpoov avrtov vrrepexovoav /cat vrrepexofJievrjv rr)v 

C S* tcraj [lev /car' dpiOfJiov vrrepexovaav icrop Se virep- 

1 ddrepov -Mail. 

2 B. Miiller (1873) from Ttmaeus 35 n 4 ; d<j>ei\ € To -mss. 

3 rrjs Sc -e, u, Escor. 72 1 . 

4 rr)v Se ifihofirjv Se -E ; rr)v Be efiBofx-qv -B. 

5 f (but with t instead of a before 77), m, r ; enTaKateiKo- 
aaTrXaalo) -E, B ; inra koI eiKooaTrXaoicj -e, u, Escor. 75, 

a wSee supra 1014 d (page 185, note d), the end of chap. 26 
(1026 a with note e there), and rod evos 6pi£ovros ro ttXtjOos 
ko\ rfj d7T€Lpia rrepas evndevros (1012 E supra) in the Xeno- 
cratean interpretation of the psychogony, which Plutarch 



with the one bounded her infinitude that by par- 
ticipation in limit it might become substance ° and 
through the agency of sameness and of difference 
commingled order and change and differentiation 
and similarity b and in all these produced, so far as 
was feasible, amity and union with one another by 
means of numbers and concord. 6 

29- These last, though you have often heard and 
read much talk and writing on the subject, it is as 
well for me to explain briefly too after giving Plato's 
passage d as a preface : " First from the total amount 
he subtracted one portion, and thereafter he sub- 
tracted one twice as large as this, and then the third 
half as large again as the second and three times the 
first, and the fourth double of the second, and the 
fifth triple of the third, and the sixth eight times the 
first, and the seventh twenty-seven times the first. 
After that he filled in the double and triple intervals 
by putting in between the former portions portions 
that he continued to cut off from that original source 
so as to have in each interval two means, one that 
exceeds and falls short of the extremes by the same 
fraction of them and one that exceeds and falls short 

rejects (1013 c-n and 1023 d supra) but from this part of 
which his own present formulation differs only in that the 
product for Xenocrates was apiOfxos while for him it is now 
ovaia. It is noteworthy moreover that in 1024 d supra (see 
note / there) Plutarch in opposition to the Xenocratean in- 
terpretation declared ro €v to be the principle of sameness as 
distinguished from the dfieptaros ovaia of the psychogony. 

6 See supra 1024 e (with note b there) and 1025 f. 

c See supra 1013 c (page 175, note c). 

d Timaeus 35 b 4 — 36 b 5, which follows immediately the 
passage quoted by Plutarch at the beginning of this essay, 
1012 b-c supra, 



(1027) €X0fi€V7]v. 1 ^paoXioov 8e oiaordoeaiv Kal imrplrajv 
Kal iiroyhowv ytvopLevoov €K tovtcov twv oeapxov iv 
rats 7rpoa0€v oiaardaeoi, rip rod irroyooov oiaorrj- 
pan rd iirirpira rrdvra craven Arjpovro XtiTToyv 2 av- 
rcov €Kd<jrov fiopiov, rrjs rov z pioplov ravrrjs Sta- 
ordoecos Xei<f>6 cloys* dpidjxov rrpos dpiOfiov ixovoys 
tovs opovs e£ /cat 7T€vri]KovTa Kal SiaKootcov 6 irpos 
rpia* Kal rerrapaKovra Kal oiaKoaia." 1 iv rovrois 
fyrelrai nptorov irepl ttjs 7TOo6ri)ros ra>v dpiOfxcjv, 

0€VT€pOV 7T€pl TTJS rd^€COS, TpiTOV 7T€pl TTJS 8wd~ 
fJL€U)S' 7T€pl JJi€V TTjS TTOOOrTjrOS TlWs> elotV, OVS €V 

rots hirrXaoiois Kal rpirrXaolois* oiaorrjpLaoi Xap,~ 

pavei* 7T€pi 0€ TTJS TCL£€a)S 7TOT€pOV €(f> €VOS GTL- 

Xov 10 rrdvr as 11 CKdereov cos QeoSojpos ^ [laXXov obs 
Kpdvrcop iv rep A 12 a^/xart, rod irpajrov Kara 
Kopvc/yrjv nOepbivov Kal x^pls /xev rtov SiTrXaauov 
X<*>pls oi rwv rpinXaolajv iv Svol 1 * orlxois 1 * vnorar- 

1 rrjv fitv Tavrco . . . icraj o€ vTT€p€Xop.4vrjv -f, m, r (but with 
aKpwv repeated and wr€p4xovaav law Be omitted by r), Timaeus 
36 A 3-5 ; k ax virepexofidvrjv ttjv 8' too) fxev tear* dpL0fx6v imepcxov- 
oav -omitted by e, u, Escor. 72, Aldine ; tt}v fxkv eKarepa) rwv 
aKpojv Icrcp T€ vir€p€xovcrav Kal vn€p€xop.€vnv tt^v Se ravrw u€p€i 
tdv anpoiv aurcSv \m€pix ovaav Ka * vn€p€Xop.€vr)v E, B. 

2 Diibner from Timaeus 36 b 1-2 (A), see 1020 b infra (f, 
m, r) and Proclus (In Platonis Timaeum ii, pp. 227, 30 and 
230, 8 [Diehl]) ; ovverrXripov to Xcittov -E, B, e, u^orr. 
(avv€7rXijpov to Xcmov -U 1 ), Escor. 72 ; avv€7rXrjpov Xclttwv -f, 
m, r. 3 rfjs 8e rou -f, m, r. 

4 Xrj<f>0€toT)s -E, B l (ct superscript over first 77 -B c0 "-), 
Proclus (In Platonis Timaeum ii, p. 230, 29 [Diehl]). 

5 s Kal v Kal a -B. 6 rpia -omitted by f. 

7 npos y Kal fi Kal a -B. 

8 Kal TpinXaatots -omitted by e, u, f, m, r, Escor. 72, 
Aldine. 9 ttjs -omitted by e, u. 

10 crr€tx°u " u i c /» a d ^v &vol otIxols infra). 

11 E, B ; ndvTa -all other mss., Aldine. 



by amounts numerically equals Since as a result of 
these links in the previous intervals there came to be 
intervals of three to two and of four to three and of 
nine to eight, he filled in all the intervals of four to 
three with the interval of nine to eight leaving a 
fraction of each of them, this remaining interval of 
the fraction having the terms of the numerical ratio 
256 to 243."* Here the first question is concerned 
with the quantity, the second with the arrangement, 
the third with the function of the numbers c : con- 
cerning the quantity what numbers they are that he 
adopts in the double and triple intervals, concerning 
the arrangement whether one is to set them out as 
Theodorus d does all in a single row or rather as 
Crantor e does in the figure of a lambda with the 
first placed at the apex and the double and triple 
numbers ranged separately from each other in two 

° The former is the harmonic mean and the latter the 
arithmetical mean (see 1019 c-e and 1028 a infra). 

b For the procedure described and the numerical values 
resulting from it cf. B. Kytzler, Hermes, lxxxvii (1959), 
pp. 405-406. 

c Three but not quite the same three questions are posed 
by Chalcidius, Platonis Timaeus, pp. 99, 17-100, 2 (Wrobel) = 
p. 83, 20-27 (Waszink) ; cf B. W. Switalski, Des Chalcidius 
Kommentar zu Plato's Timaeus (Miinster, 1902), pp. 81-82. 

d Theodorus of Soli ; see chap. 20 (1022 c-d) infra and 
]Je Defectu Orac. 427 a-e. 

• Crantor, frag. 7 (Kayser)=frag. 7 (Mullach, Frag. 
Philos. Graec. iii, p. 145) ; see chap. 20 (1022 c-e) infra, and 
for Crantor as the first exegete of Plato see 1012 d, note c 

12 XdnfiSa -E, B. 
18 iv rpioi -r. 

14 orelxois -u (cf. ad gtlxov supra and 1022 c infra : 8vo 
oTixovs [otoixovs -f* m, r]). 



(1027) TO(JL€VCDV 7T€pl 0€ TT)S XP € ^ K<XL T V^ $VvdfJL€0)S Tl 

TTOiovoL TrapaXapL^avojievoi 7rpos ttjv avoraatv rfjs 
ipv X rjs. 

30. Wp&rov ovv Trepl rod TTpwrov 7rapairrju6- 
/xetfa 1 rovs Xeyovras a)$ eirl rcov Xoyojv avrcov 
aTTOXprj Oeojpelv rjv ex ei rd re Staarr^xara <f>vaiv 
at re ravra avjJL7rAr]pov<Jou jjLeaorrjres , ev ols dv ns 
apiOfJLOis VTrodrjrac x^pas e'xovoi SeKriKas 2 p,era£v 
rcov elprjpievojv dvaXoytajv ojjlolcos Trepaivofievrjs 
E rfjs SiSaaTcaAtas'. Kav yap dXrjdes* ff rd Aeyo/xe- 
vov, dpuvhpdv rroiel rrjv jjiddrjcnv avev rrapaheiy- 
pLarcov aXArjs re QetopLas drtelpyei X^P LV ^X ^ ar }^ 
ovk o\(J)lX6go(J)Ov . dv ovv aVo T779 [JLOvdSos dp£d- 
fievoi rovs SnrXaalovs Kal rpirrXaoLovs ev piepei ri- 
Ocofiev, ojs avros v^rjyelraL,* yevrjoovrai Kara to 5 
e£fjs ottov p,ev rd 8vo Kal reooapa Kal oktoj* ottov 
Se rpia Kal evvea Kal ecKoacerrrd, 7 avvdrravres fiev 

1 a7TapaiT7)(j6tJ,€da -e, u (ap cancelled -u corr *), Escor. 72 
(aTTaiTTjooneda -in margin) ; dnapTrjao^Oa -Aldine. 

2 5e nvas -e 1 (corrected e 2 ), u. 

3 E, B ; Kal yap dv dXrjdes -e, f, m, r, Escor. 72, Aldine ; 
Kal ydp d\r)6zs -u. 

4 E, B ; a<f>7}y€iTai -e, u, f, m, Escor. 72, Aldine ; 


u^yetrat -r. 

5 to -Wyttenbach ; rov -E, B, e, u, Escor. 72, Aldine ; 
rovs -f, m, r. 

6 rd hvo Kal rd rioaapa Kal oktco -Maurommates (so also 
the versions of Xylander and Amyot) ; rd onvrtpov Kal rd 
rlraprov Kal oyooov -MSS. 

7 rpia Kal ivvia Kal eiKooienrd -Maurommates (so also the 
versions of Xylander and Amyot) ; rplrov Kal harov (cvvarov 
-E, B) Kal €lKQCrTo£fihopt.ov -MSS. 



rows underneath, and concerning their use or func- 
tion what effect is produced by their employment for 
the composition of the soul. 

30. First, then, with regard to the first question 
we shall decline to follow those who say a that it 
suffices to observe in the ratios themselves the nature 
of the intervals and of the means with which they 
are filled in, as the directions are carried out alike 
with whatever numbers one may assume that have 
spaces between them to receive the prescribed pro- 
portions. b Our reason is that, even if what they say 
be true, by the absence of examples it obscures the 
understanding of the subject c and debars us from 
another speculation that has a charm not unphilo- 
sophical.^ So, if beginning from the unit we place 
the double and triple numbers alternately e as 
indicated by Plato himself/ the result will be in 
succession on one side two, four, and eight and on 
the other side three, nine, and twenty-seven, seven 

a Perhaps Eudorus, following Crantor (see 1020 c-d 

b See 1020 a infra (. . . r&v avra>v X6ya>v Biafi^vovratv, vtto- 
oo\ds ttoiovoiv dpKovaas . . •) and 1020 d infra (Xoyov fikv €\ov 
rov avrov dpidfiov 8e rov onrXdoiov) ; and with the latter cf. 
Theon Smyrnaeus, p. 69, 7-9 (Hiller) in the same context : 
ovbkv 8e KO)\v€i koX £<f>* irepojv dpidfitov rov avrov eupiWav Xoyov 
. . . ov yap dpidfiov oj pier fievov eAa/fcv 6 HXdrcov dXXd Xoyov 

c Cf e.g. Plato, Politicus 277 u 1-2. 

d i.e. the arithmological speculations about the M remark- 
able numbers " (1017 e infra),, to which Plutarch devotes 
most of the next three chapters (cf. Burkert, Weisheit una 1 
Wissenschaft, p. 375, n. 59). 

* See 1017 E infra (evaAAdf Kal loiq. rdrreaOai . . . rovs dp- 
riovs . . . Kal irdXiv tovs rrcpirrovs. 

1 See 1017 e infra (# Kal BrjXos icrn fiovXdficvos . . .) and 
1027 f — 1028 a infra (fwvovovxi heiKvvu>v r\plv . . .)• 



(1027) €7TT(X KOivfjs Se Xapi^av opAvy\s rfjs fiovdSos dxpi> 
Ttaodpcuv 1 rep TroXXanXaaiaGfia) 7rpoi6vT€s. 2 ov 
yap evravOa p,6vov dAAd 7roAAa^o0t rfjs rerpdSos rj* 
F irpos rrjv ejSSo/zdSa avfjLirddeia ylyverai /cardS^Aoc. 
rj fX€V ovv V7t6 tcjv UvdayopcKwv vpivovpAvr] rerpa- 
ktvs, rd eg Kal rpiaKovra,* Oavfxaarov e\eiv 8ok€l 
to 5 avyKeZadai fiev e/c 7Tpcx)TOJV dpricov reocrdpajv 
Kal 7Tpa>Ttov irepLTTtov reaadpcov yiyvead at 6 Se ov- 
t,vyla rerdpTT] ra>v ifa^fjs crvvriOepbevcov 7 * TTpcorr) 
[lev ydp earn? aru^vyia r) rov ivos /cat rcov Svelv 

1017 C Sevrepa* (11.) 3e rj rcov rpicov 10 Kal reaadpcov 11 

D rpivT] Se rj rcov e' Kal $' , cov 12 ovSe/xia rroiel rerpd- 

ycovov ovr avrrj Kad' iavrrjv ovre pier a rcov dXXcov 

(j] he rcov £' Kal rj'y 13 rerdprr] iiev icrrc ovvridepevrj 

1 mss. ; T€aoapaKovTa in margin of f, m, r. 

2 TTpoiovres -Maurommates ; irpoiovruiv -mss. 

3 fj -f, m, Aldine. 

4 #ccu rpidKovra -B (cf. De hide 381 f — 382a) ; Kal t<i 
rpcaKovra -all other mss. 5 rco -f, m, r. 

6 yiverai -f, m, r, Aldine. 

7 E, B, cf. De hide 382 a ; auvreflei/^'vcov -all other mss, 
Aldine. 8 icrn -omitted by r. 

9 fevripa 7T€p(,TTa>v (chap. 30 b [1027 f] infra) -E, B ; 
&€VT€pa (bevrcpa Be -f ) rcov 'ne.pirroiv -f, m, r, Aldine ; Sevrepir- 
rcbv -e, u, Escor. 72 (parawe -Escor. 72 in margin) ; see 1022 
e supra (chap. 21 init.), apparatus criticus, page 212, note 2. 

10 8c rj rwv rpiiov -all mss., following 1017 c supra (chap. 10 
ad finerri) : Koap.ov . . . vac. 4 -E, vac. 8 -B ; koct/xov . . . vac. 
5 -f, m, vac. 3 -r . . . iv . . . vac. 4 . . . -f, m, r ; Kocrpov . cvOa^ 
-e, u ; KocrfAov . iv . . . vac. 2 . . . -Escor. 72 ; see 1022 e 
supra (chap. 21 init.)> apparatus cr Ulcus, page 212, note 2. 

11 reaaapcov -Wyttenbach (reTpdSos -Xylander) ; Kal fiias 
-mss. (fxias . . . vac. 3 . . . -E with illegible correction in 
margin). 12 Kal -r. 

13 <iy §€ tc5v £' Kal 77 '> -added by Maurommates ; <£' Kal 
17 '> added after r€rdpTq \iiv iari -Xylander, and similarly 
Amyot's version. 



numbers in all but, the unit being taken as common, 
progressing to four by multiplication. 6 Not only 
here, in fact, but in many cases does the affinity of 
the tetrad with the hebdomad become manifest. 
So thirty-six, the tetractys celebrated by the Pytha- 
goreans, is thought to have a remarkable property 
in being the sum of the first four even and the first 
four odd numbers and in coming to be as the fourth 
pair of the successive numbers added together d : for 
the first pair is that of one and two and the second 
(11.) that of three and four and the third that of five 
and six, none of which pairs either by itself or to- 
gether with the others produces a square number ; 
{but that of seven and eight) is the fourth, and being 

° See infra 1017 d (rqv /xev /AovaSa, koivtjv ovaav dpxqv . . •)» 
1018 f (rj ixovas €7tlkolvos ovaa . . .), 1027 F (ti)v ydp yuovdha 
kolvtjv ovaav afi<l>oTv npordtjas . . .) ; cf. Chalcidius, Platonis 
Timaeus, p. 104, 20 (Wrobel) = pp. 87, 26-88, 1 (Waszink) : 
" communi videlicet accepta singularitate." 

6 Cf. Theon Smyrnaeus, p. 95, 2-13 (Hiller). 

c Cf. Philo Jud., Quaestiones in Exodum ii, 87 (p. 527 
[Aucher] = p. 137 (L.C.L.]) and De Specialibus Legibus ii, 
40 (v, p. 95, 15-20 [Conn]) ; Nicomachus, Excerpta 6 
(Musici Scriptores Graeci, p. 277, 18-19 [Jan]) and Nico- 
machus in Iamblichus, Theolog. Arith., p. 58, 10-19 and 
p. 59, 10-18 (De Falco). 

d Cf. De hide 381 f — 382 a ; Chalcidius, Platonis 
Timaeus, p. 104, 10-15 (Wrobel) = p. 87, 19-22 (Waszink) ; 
Philo Jud., Quaestiones in Genesin iii, 49 (p. 233 [Aucher] = 
pp. 247-248 [L.C.L.]). In all these passages, as here, one is 
explicitly an odd number (cf. Theon Smyrnaeus, pp. 21, 
24r-22, 5 [Hiller] ; Speusippus, frag. 4, 22-25 [Lang]), 
whereas for Plutarch ordinarily three is the first odd number 

(see 1018 cj/nfra : . . . 3* re rrjs apxys *ai . . . rov jrpwr 

tiia in 


irepiTTov). For 36 as the sum of a " tetractys " formed in a 
different way cf. Nicomachus, Excerpta 7 and 10 (Musici 
Scriptores Graeci, pp. 279, 8-15 and 282, 10-14 [Jan]) ; and 
for the special properties of 36 see 1018 c-d infra. 



(1017) Se rats 7rpoTep(us TpiaKovTakt; 1 TtTpdyojvov nap- 
ioyzv. rj Se tojv vtto HXdrwvos €kk€l[1€VQ)v dpiO- 


tojv fiev dpTcwv dpTiots Siaorrqfiacri tojv Se TreptT- 
tojv 7T€piTTols 7roXXa7TXaotaG0€VTOJV rrepiiyei ok 
ttjv [lev Liovdoa, Koivrjv 2 ovgclv dpx^jv dpTiojv koX 

7T€pLTTO)V, TOJV 0€ VT? aVTTj TCL flCV 8vO /Cat Tpi(X 

TrpojTOvs eTwreoovs , Ta Se 3 Teaaapa /cat iwea rrpoj- 
tovs TCTpayojvovs, to, S' oktoj /cat €t/cocrt€7TTd 
E TrpojTOvs KvfSovs iv* dpiOpiois, €%oj Xoyov Trjs LLovd- 
Sos Tide (jLevrjg, 5 fj /cat SfjXos eoTi fiovXpLievos ovk 
€7rl puds evOeias ctTravTas aAA' cVaAAa£ /cat tSta 
TaTT€a#at tovs dpTiovs li€t dXXrjXojv /cat rrdXiv 
tovs rrepLTTovs, ws 6 viroyeypaiTTai. 1 ovtojs at 
av'Quyiai tojv opbolojv eaovTcu npos tovs opiotovs 

1 Trporipais rpiaKovraki; -Diibner ; irpo . . . vac. 2 . . . t 
. . . vac. 3 . . . rpia/covra cf (ef -B) . . . vac. 2 . . . rerpd- 
ycovov -E, B ; -n patrons rptaKOvra e£ (A? -f, 111, y) rerpdy ojvov -all 
other mss., Aldine. 

2 koivt)v -omitted by r. 

3 ra 5e ra Se -B. 

4 iv -omitted by r. 

5 OepLevrjs -f» m, r, Aldine. 

6 cos -Xylander (so Amyot's version) ; Kal -mss. ; d)s /ecu 
-B. Miiller (1873). 

7 The figure as below in the margins of K, e, u, Escor. 72 ; 
A with the same numbers in the margins of B, f, m ; omitted 
altogether by r and Aldine (see page 272 infra). 

° For the term " tetractys " used of this figure cf. Theon 
Smyrnaeus, p. 94, 12-14 and p. 95, 2-8 (Hiller) and Chal- 
cidius, Platonis Timaeus^ p. 104, 15-22 (\Vrobel) = pp. 87, 
22-88, 2 (Waszink) : "... quadratura cognominatur quia 
continet quattuor quidem limites in duplici latere. . . ." 



added to the preceding pairs it gives thirty-six, a 
square number. The tetractys of the numbers set out 
by Plato, a however, has been generated in a more 
consummate way, 6 the multiplication of the even by 
even intervals and of the odd by odd ; and it contains 
the unit, to be sure, as being the common principle 
of even and odd numbers, c but of the numbers under 
the unit contains two and three, the first plane 
numbers/ and four and nine, the first square num- 
bers, and eight and twenty-seven, the first cubic 
numbers, e the unit being left out of account, which 
makes it quite obvious that he wishes f them to be 
arranged not all in one straight line but alternately, 
that is the even numbers together by themselves and 
on the other hand the odd numbers as drawn below. g 
In this way numbers that are similar to one another 

b See 1019 b infra (chap. 14 sub finem) x c5ore noXv rijs 
UvOayopiKrjs . • . reXeiorepav. 

c Cf. Theon Smyrnaeus, p. 94, 15-16 (Hiller) and Chal- 
cidius, Platonis Timaeus, p. 104, 24-25 (Wrobel) = p. 88, 
3-4 (Waszink). 

d See also 1022 d infra (imirihaw eiwT&ois • • •) and Be 
Defectu Orac. 415 e, where in the same context two and 
three are referred to as " the first two plane numbers." 
According to Nicomachus (Arithmetica Introductio u, vii, 3 
[pp. 86, 21-87, 7, Hoche]) the plane numbers begin with 
three ; and Theon Smyrnaeus in this context calls both two 
and three " linear " (p. 95, 17-19 [Hiller], cf. p. 23, 11-14), 
although elsewhere he calls two itself "oblong" (p. 31, 
15-17). In Be hide 367 e-f Plutarch himself treats square 
and oblong numbers as species of plane numbers. 

* For the expression, iTwrihovs . . . rerpaycovovs . . • kv- 
fiovs iv aptdfjiols, cf. Iamblichus, Theolog. Arith., p. 82, 17 (De 
Falco) = Speusippus, frag. 4, 8-9 (Lang). 

/ See 1027 e supra with note /there. 

i.e. in accordance with Crantor's interpretation (see 
1027 D supra with note e there), page 273 infra. 



(1017) Kai iroirjoovaw dpidp,ovs £m<f>av€is Kara re 1 ovv- 
deaiv Kai TroXXaTrXaaiaa fiov i£ aXArjXojv. 

12. Kara avvdeow ovtojs* tcl 8vo Kai ra rpca 2 
7T€vre yiyverai, ra reoaapa Kai ra ewea* rpta/cat- 
Se/ca, 4 ra 8* oktcj Kai tiKooieTrra nevre kol rpid- 
Kovra. tovtojv yap rwv dptOficov oi UvdayopiKol 

TO. fX€V 7T€VT€ Tp6[JLOV, b 07T€p iorl <f)66yyOV ,' €Ka- 

F Xovv, olofxevot rtov rod rovov Siaorrijxdrojv rrp&rov 
etvai <f>0€yKr6v to ireinrrov. 1 rd Se rpiaKalSeKa 
Aet/x/xa, Kaddirep HXdrwv ttjv els tcra rod rovov 
8iavofMr]v drroyiyvajoKovres, ra Se nevre Kai rpid- 

1 tc -omitted by f, m, r, Escor. 72. 

2 Kai Tpla -f, m, r. 3 Kai ewia -f» m, r, Aldine. 

4 Aldine ; iy -E, B, f, m, r ; rpioKaihcKa -e, u, Escor. 72. 

5 Tannery (Memoires Scientifiques ix [1929], pp. 379- 
380) ; rpo<t>6v -mss. 6 <f>66yyov -u. 

7 to irifnnov -omitted by B ; tov iriyLtrrov -f, m, r. 

° See 1022 d infra (chap. 20 subfinem) : emir4&an> imndhoLS 
. . . <Tv£vyovvra)v, and page 253, note d supra. 

b Despite the " five tetrachords " of 1029 a-b infra and 
the musical significance ascribed to five in De E 389 d-f 
and De Defectu Orac. 430 a there is to my knowledge no 
relevant parallel to this enigmatic passage ; and in default 
of one I adopt Tannery's emendation and explanation as the 
most plausible yet suggested, adding only that the use of 
tovos alone as here for " mode M or M scale " is well estab- 



will form the pairs and both by addition and by 
multiplication with each other will produce remark- 
able numbers. 

12. By addition as follows : two plus three are 
five, four plus nine are thirteen, and eight plus 
twenty-seven are thirty-five. These numbers are 
remarkable, for of them the Pythagoreans called five 
" tremor,' ' which is to say " sound," thinking that 
the fifth of the scale's intervals is first to be sounded,** 
called thirteen " leimma," denying as did Plato that 
the tone is divisible into equal parts, and called 

lished (cf De E 389 E [• . . tovs Trpcorovs elre rovovs rj rponovs 
cW* apfiovlas xpl KaXelv . . .] ; Cleonides, Introductio 12 
[Mustci Scriptores Graeci y pp. 202, 6-8 and 203, 4-6, Jan] ; 
Porphyry, In Ptolemaei Harmonica, p. 82, 3-6 [During]), 
though it is disturbing to find it used in a different sense in 
the very next clause. For a different interpretation of to 
•nipmrov cf. H. Weil et Th. Reinach, Plutarque : De la Mu- 
sique (Paris, 1900), p. lvi, note 5. 

c See 1018 e infra with note d there (. . 816 K al rd rpia- 
KaCBcKa Xelfifia KaXovmv . . .) and 1020 e-f infra (. . . ot 8c 
UvdayopiKol ttjv /xev €is laa ropjr]v direyvcooav avrov . . .). As 
for Kaddnep HXdrcov, I take it with what follows (see 1021 
d-e infra [. . . koX tovt iarlv o §r\aiv 6 ITAaTOiv . . .]), giving 
Plutarch the benefit of the doubt, for Plato did not " call 
thirteen ' leimma,* M although some said that he had done 
so (cf Theon Smyrnaeus, p. 69, 4-6 [Hiller]). 



(1017) kovtcl appioviav, on ovveoTrjKev e/c 8velv Kvficov 
TTpwTOiv 1 oV apriov /Cat Trepirrov yeyovoTOJv e'/c 
reaadpcov S' dpidptov, rod ?' kcli rod 77' /cat rod 6' 
koll rod 2 tj8', ttjv dpidprjTiKrjv /cat ttjv dppovLKrjv 
1018 dvaXoyiav 7Tepiex6vTcov. ecrrai Se 3 pdXXov rj 4, 8v- 
vapus €t«f)avr)s erri 8iaypdpparos. earco to a jS y 8 
TrapaXArjXoypappov opOoytoviov ex ov rwv rrXevpcov 
rrjv a j8 7reVre rrjv Se a 8 eVra- /cat Tpr)9eiorjS rrjs 
p,€V eXaTTovos els 8vo /cat rpta Kard to k ttjs Se 
piel^ovos els Tpia /cat reaaapa /cara to A 8ir]")(dojoav 
drro tcov Toputov evOelai Tepvovoai dAA^Aas /cara to 
k pi v /cat /caTa to A ft f /cat Trotovaaf to pev a k 
pi A 7 e| to Se k j3 £ /x 8 ewea to Se A ft v 8 o/ctoj to 
Se /x £ y v SdiSe/ca to Se oAov TrapaXX-qXoypap- 
piov TpiaKovTa /cat rrevre, tovs tojv ovpcfrojvitjv 
rwv npwTOJV Xoyovs ev toZs tG)V ywp iiOV dpcOpots 
B ets a 8irjprjTai irepieypv. Ta pev yap 9 e£ /cat o/ctoj 
tov erriTpiTov k\ei Adyov, ev a> to Sid Teoodpojv, 
to, Se e£ /cat ivvea tov rjpaoXtov, ev to to Sta irevTe, 
tol Se ei; /cat t/3' 10 tov 8i7rXdoiov , ev a) to Sta 77aaojv. 


2 tou -omitted by E, B, e, Escor. 72, Aldine. 

3 Sc -omitted by B. 

4 r) -omitted by f. 

5 w " r - 

6 iroiovaai -omitted by f, r ; /cat ttoiovocli . . . to 8e Kfi£fi 
-omitted by e, u, Escor. 72, m (/cat [iroLovoat omitted] to jjlcv 
clkXh ef to 8c /cjS/x£ -m 1 in margin), Aldine. 

7 a/c A/a -f, m (in margin), r. 

8 k£ii£ -f, m (in margin) ; *j8tif -r. 

9 yap -E, B, e, u, Escor. 72 ; ouv -f, m, r, Aldine. 
10 E, B ; Kai ra i$' -e, u, f, m, r, Escor. 72, Aldine. 

a With this and the rest of the chapter through Sid tovto 
/cat apfiovlav . . . e/caAeaav c/. Iamblichus, Theolog. Arith., 


thirty-five " concord" because it consists of the first 
two cubes produced from even and odd b and of four 
numbers, six and eight and nine and twelve, which 
comprise the arithmetical and the harmonic pro- 
portion. The force of this will be more evident in a 
diagram. Let af3y$ be a rectangular parallelogram 
with five as the side a/3 and seven as the side aS ; 
and, the lesser having been divided into two and 
three at k and the greater into three and four at A, 
from the points of section let there be produced 
along Kfiv and Aju£ straight lines that intersect and 
make a/cjuA six, K^fx nine, Xjjlv8 eight, \i^yv twelve, 
and the whole parallelogram thirty-five, comprising 
in the numbers of the areas into which it has been 
divided the ratios of the primary consonances. d For 
the areas six and eight have the sesquitertian ratio, 
in which the fourth consists ; the areas six and nine 
the sesquialteran, in which the fifth consists ; the 
areas six and twelve the duple, in which the octave 

p. 63, 7-23 (De Falco), i.e. Nicomachus (cf ibid., p. 56, 8-9 
and Gnomon, V [1929], p. 554). 

6 2 3 +3 3 = 35 ; cf. Iamblichus, Theolog. Arith., p. 63, 7-9 
(De Falco). 

c i.e. 35 = 6+8+9 + 12, in which 8 is the harmonic mean 
and 9 is the arithmetical mean of the extremes, 6 and 12 ; 
see 1019 c-d infra and cf. Nicomachus, Arithmetica Intro- 
ductio ii, xxix, 3-4 (p. 146, 2-23 [Hoche]) and Iamblichus, 
In Nicomachi Arithmeticam Introductionem, pp. 122, 12- 
125, 13 (Pistelli). 

d See 1019 d infra (to, npcora ovfi^cova) ; cf. Theon 
Smyrnaeus, p. 51, 18-20 (Hiller), [Alexander], Metapk., 
p. 834, 1-2, and [Plutarch], De Musica 1139 c-d (. . . to 
KvpiuiTara SiaCTTij/xara . . .). Since the octave consists of a 
fourth and a fifth, only the latter two were usually considered 
to be strictly " primary " in the sense of " simple " con- 
sonances (cf Ptolemy, Harmonica, p. 11, 24-25 [During]; 
Porphyry, In Ptolemaei Harmonica, p. 96, 12-20 [During]). 



(1018) wean $e koll 6 rod rovov Aoyos €7r6y8oos tbv 1 iv 





tf .. 


7T€pi€Xovra tovs Xoyovs rovrovs apidfJidv eKaXecrav. 
£{;aKis Se 4, y€v6fi€Vos rov rcov h Se/ca iroiel koll 8ta- 

1 a)v -omitted by E, B. 

2 The figure infra set into text -E ; in margin (eVtVptTo? 
omitted and cVoySoos rovos along the line y££ in the rectangles 
i/2 and 6) -B ; in margin with letters only -f, m ; in margin 
(right angled parallelogram divided into four equal parts 



consists ; and the ratio of the tone, being sesquioc- 
tavan, is present too in the areas nine and eight. This 












t JO 



3. 5 






is precisely the reason why they called " concord " the 
number that comprises these ratios. When multi- 
plied by six, moreover, it produces the number 210, 

with letters only, * and v omitted) -e, u, Escor. 72 (can- 
celled) ; figure omitted by r. 

3 Kal -f, m, r, Aldine ; pkv -E, B, e, u, Escor. 72. 

4 Be -omitted by r. 5 tov tov -r. 



(1018) koglojv dpid/iov, ev ooais yjiepais Xeyerai 1 t<x 
€7TTdii7]va tcov fip€<f)<ji)v TeXeoyovecGdac. 

13. EiaAtv S' a</>' 2 iripas apxrjs, Kara TToXXarrXa- 
aiao/JLov 6 {lev Sis y tov s'' 77ot€t, 3 6 8e rerpaKis 
ewea tov AZ , o o oktolkis kl, tov ens' . Kat 

€GTIV 6 fJL€V S // TtXeiOS, IGOS U)V TOt? iaVTOV {L€p€Gl, 

koll ydfjios KaXeiTOLt 8td ttjv tov dpTtov koll rrepiT- 

TOV GVfJLfJU^lV. €TL §6 GW€GT7]K€V €K T€ T7)S OLpxfjS 

tov* 6 8e Xf' rrpcoTOs £gti T€Tpdya)Vos dfia Kal 
TpiycjvoSy T€Tpdyojvos p,ev diro Trjs e£aSo? Tpiyoovos 
8 a77o Trjs oySoaSos" Kal yeyove TToXXarrXaGLaGfJia) 
jjiev T6Tpayajvu)v Svelv, tov TtGGapa tov evvea 

1 Dubner (ooais Acycrai r)p.€pais -Xylander) ; ooais (. . . 
vac. 2 . . . -E ; no lacuna -B) pioipais XtytTai -E, B ; ooais 

at e 

(oocoi -e, Escor. 72 [eV ooais in margin] ; oo-qoi -u ; Sozoi 
-Aldine) Xiyerac polpats -e, u, f, m, r, Escor. 12. 

2 Xylander ; e<£* -mss. 3 -noiovoiv -e, u, Escor. 72. 

4 E, B, f, m, r ; rpiaKovra Kal c£ -e, u ; rpiaKovrait; 
-Escor. 12. 

5 <npa)Tov> -added in margin of Aldine from codex of 
Donatus Polus and implied by Amyot's version ; misplaced 
by Xylander before the aprlov of hid tt)v tov aprlov just above. 

6 /cat rod irpoiTov dpTiov Kal -nepiTTov -Wyttenbach ; Kal tov 

dpTLOV Kal TOV 7T€pLTTOV TTpOJTOV -B. M tiller (1873). 

a Cf. Iamblichus, Theolog. Arith., p. 51, 16-19 and p. 64, 
5-13 (De Falco) ; Censorinus, De Die Natali xi, 5 (pp. 19, 
28-20, 2 [Multsch]) ; Macrobius, In Somnium Scipionis r, 
vi, 15-16; Proclus, In Platonis Rem Publicum ii, pp. 31, 
28-35, 23 (Kroll). 

5 i.e. the pairs of numbers in the triangle of Crantor 
(1017 e supra [chap. 11 sub finem]), which in the preceding 
chapter gave the sums 5, 13, and 35, now by multiplication 
yield the products 6, 6 2 , and 6 3 . 

c See Quaest. Conviv. 738 f and Lycurgus v, 13 (42 f) 
and cf. Euclid, Elements vii, Def. 22 ; Nicomachus, Arith- 



the number of days in which it is said seven months' 
babes are born fully formed. a 

13. And again making a fresh start, by multipli- 
cation : twice three makes six, four times nine thirty- 
six, and eight times twenty-seven 216. h Now, six is a 
perfect number, being equal to the sum of its 
factors, and is called marriage by reason of the 
commixture of the even and odd d ; and furthermore 
it consists of the principle and the {first) even and 
the first odd number/ Thirty-six is the first number 
at once square and triangular, square from six and 
triangular from eight / ; and it is the result of the 
multiplication of two squares, nine multiplied by 

metica Introductio i, xvi, 2-3 (pp. 39, 14-40, 22 [Hoche]) ; 
Theon Smyrnaeus, p. 45, 10-22 and p. 101, 6-9 (Hiller); 
Anatolius in Iamblichus, Theolog. Arith., p. 17, 12-13 and 
p. 42, 19-20 (De Falco). 

d Cf. Philo Jud., Quaestiones in Genesin iii, 38 (p. 206 
[Aucher] = pp. 224-225 [L.C.L.]) with Joannes Lydus, De 
Mensibus ii, 11 (p. 32, 4-14 [Wuensch]) ; Clement of 
Alexandria, Stromata vi, xvi, 139, 3 ; Anatolius in Iam- 
blichus, Theolog. Arith., p. 43, 3-9 (De Falco). 

e For two as the first even number and three as the first 
odd number see Quaest. Romanae 264 a, De E 388 a, De 
De/ectu Orac. 429 b ; and for unity or the monad as ap\l 
apiOfjLov see De De/ectu Orac. 415 e (oc tc tt}s o-pxys Ka ' L T &> v 
7rpa)TO)v . . .) and 1017 d supra with note c there (cf. also 
Nicomachus, Arithmetica Introductio i, viii, 2-3 = p. 14, 18-19 
[Hoche] ; Iamblichus, Theolog. Arith., p. 1, 4 [De Falco] ; 
and Macrobius, In Somnium Scipionis i, vi, 7), but for one 
treated as the first odd number see 1027 f supra with note 
d there. 

/ For triangular numbers see the references in note c on 

n(n + 1) 
Plat. Quaest. 1003 f supra. The expression -^— — - is 

satisfied for 36 by n = 8, and none of the preceding triangular 
numbers (with the exception of 1) is a square (cf. Theon 
Smyrnaeus, p. 33, 16-17 [Hiller]), 



(1018) TroAAaTrAaaiacravTos, ovvBeoei 8k rpi&v Kvfiojv, to 
yap ev /cat t<x o/croo /cat ra et/coai€7rra crvvredevra 

1 1 J 


j 1 


K <3 




7rot€t top TTpoyeypafifjievov d/nfyxoV. ert Se €T€po~ 
D ixrjKTjs and Svetv 7rA€vpcDv, raV jLtev ScoSe/ca T/W 

° For 1 as a cubic number see Quaest. Conviv. 744 b with 
Iamblichus, Theolog. Arith., p. 77, 9 (De Faico), and cf. 
Nicomachus, Arithmetica Introductio n, xv, 3 and xx, 5 



four, and of the addition of three cubic numbers, for 
one a and eight and twenty-seven added together 

1 1 


-H 1 — 
















produce the aforesaid number. Moreover, it is an 
oblong number from two sides, from twelve multi- 

(pp. 106, 6-7 and 119, 12-15 [Hoche]) ; Plutarch himself, 
however, calls eight the first cubic number (1017 d supra, 
1020 d infra, and Quaest. Conviv. 738 f), for which cf. 
lamblichus, Theolog. Arith., p. 72, 2 (De Falco) : trpwrov 
ivepyela Kvpov. 



(1018) yiyvofxevcov 1 tcov S' evvea rerpaKis. av ovv €KT€- 
dcoow 2 at tcov oyr\\iaTcov rrXevpai, tov Terpaycovov 
to. s*' /cat tov Tpiycovov to. oktco /cat irapaXXrjXo- 
ypdjjLjJLCov tov fiev erepov ra ivvea tov 8e erepov 
to. tjS', tovs 3 tcov avficpcovLcov TToiTjoovoi Xoyovs . 
eoTCU yap to. 8to8eKa Trpos fiev to. evvea Sea Teood- 
pcov cos vqrrj rrpos TrapapLeorjV , Trpos 8e to. oktco 

8ta 7T€VT€ OJS VTJT7) TTpOS jJL€OT]V, TTpOS §€ TO. g' StCX 

rraocov cos vrjrr) rrpos VTrdrrjv. 6 he ats*' 4 Kvfios 
iarlv dvo e£d8os loos 777 eavTov TTepifieTpcp. 

14. Totauras" 8e 8wdpLeis tcov eKKetfievcov dpi- 
dfjicov e\6vTcov 18iov tco TeXevTaicp ov pipe fir] Ke, tco 


iraoiv. k'oTi 8e Kal 7repio8iKos oeXrjvrjs. /cat tcov 

1 y . . . vac. % . . . ofievcov -r. 

2 ivreOwGiv -r. The figure supra set into text -E ; in 
margin -B ; in margin (right angled parallelogram divided 
into four equal parts with letters and numbers only) -e, u, 
Escor. 72 ; figure omitted by f, m, r. 

3 Between ij8' and tovs f, m, r, and Aldine repeat koI tov 
Tpiywvov . . . 7rapa\\r)\oypdiJLfjLQ)v supra ; and Escor. 72 repeats 
(but brackets) Kal tov Tpiywvov ... to u /zcv c. 

4 f, m, r, Escor. 72, Aldine (c/. 6 fxkv s and 6 hk A$r' in 
1018 c supra) ; 6 ok to>v 01s' -E, B, e, u (to>j> aij3')« 


5 Maurom mates ; owTiQepitvov -mss. (owTiOepievos -r). 

a Number of this kind is Trpopur^ris and only that of the 
type n(n + 1) is iTepop^K-qs according to Nicomachus, 
Arithmetica Introductio 11, xvii, 1 and xviii, 2 (pp. 108, 8- 
109, 11 and 113, 6-18 [Hoche]) and Theon Smyrnaeus, 
pp. 30, 8-31, 8 (Hiller). Theon himself at least once, how- 
ever, uses €T€pofirjKrjs for any oblong number (p. 36, 13-20 
[Hiller]), just as Plutarch does here (see also Be hide 367 f, 



plied by three and from nine multiplied by four. 
Now, if the sides of the figures be set out, six the 
side of the square and eight of the triangular number 
and of the parallelogrammic numbers b nine the side 
of one and twelve of the other, they will produce the 
ratios of the consonances, for twelve to nine will be a 
fourth as nete to paramese, to eight a fifth as nete 
to mese, and to six an octave as nete to hypate. c 
The number 216 is a cube from six equal to its own 

14. Of the numbers set out, 6 which possess such 
properties, the last, twenty-seven, has the peculiar 
characteristic f of being equal to the sum of all those 
before it. 9 ' It is also the periodic number of the 

where eighteen [i.e. 6x3 or 9x2] is called crepo/^/cr??), as 
Euclid is supposed by Iamblichus to have done (In Nico- 
machi Arithmeticam Introductionem, pp. 74, 23-75, 4 
[Pistelli]), and as Aristotle apparently did (Anal. Post. 
73 a 40-b 1 with Philoponus, Anal. Post., p. 62, 15-20). 
Plato in Theaetetus 148 a 1-b 2 used both vpofM^K-qs and 
€T€pofi^K7js indifferently of all oblong numbers. 

b i.e. the oblongs, 12 x 3 and 9x4, supra. Cf. Theon 
Smyrnaeus (pp. 27, 23-28, 2 [Hiller]), who uses the term 
for those numbers that in his sense are 7rpofj,r}K€is but not 
€T€pofjirJK€Ls, i-e, those of the type n(n+m) where m is not 
less than 2 

c Cf. [Plutarch], Be Musica 1138 e— 1139 b and 1140 a ; 
Nicomachus, Harmonices Man. 6 and Excerpta 7 (Musici 
Scriptores Graeci, pp. 247, 7-26 and 248, 18-26 ; p. 279, 
8-15 [Jan]). For the meaning of nete and hypate see note 
e on Plat. Quaest. 1007 e supra ; the paramese is one tone 
higher in pitch than the mese (cf. Nicomachus in Musici 
Scriptores Graeci, p. 248, 21-22 [Jan]). 

d i.e. 216 = 6 3 = the sum of the six bounding planes, each 
of which is 6 2 . 

e i.e. rdv vito HAdrtovos €KK€i,}L€va)v dpiO/Mcov (1017 D supra). 

f See page 251, note a supra. 

' Cf. Theon Smyrnaeus, p. 96, 5-8 (Hiller). 



(1018) ifjifieXcov biaarrjfidTOJV oi HvdayopiKol rov tovov 
iv rovrco rco dpiO/ito rdrrovai' Sto /cat 1 ra rpta/cat- 
Sc/ca Xctfifia KaXovaw y diroXeLirei yap fiovdbt rod 
ruLiaeos. on 8e ovroi 2 /cat tovs tcov avfufrcovicov 
Xoyovs 7T€piexov(n paSiov KarafxaOelv. /cat yap 
t7rAaato9 Aoyos eorw o tcov ovo irpos to ev ev to 
to Sta iraocov, /cat rjfAioXtos 6 rrpos ra 8vo tcov 

TplCOV €V CO TO Sta 7T€VT€, /Cat €TTLTplTOS 6 7TpOS TCI 

rpta tcov T€<Todpa>v iv co to Sta T€aodpLov, /cat 

TpnrXdcnos 6 rrpos ra rpta tcov ivvia iv to to Sta 

F iraotov /cat Sta 7rivT€, /cat TeTparrXdotos 6 rrpos tol 


1 /cat -omitted by r. 

2 ovtol -omitted by r. 

8 his -omitted by u. 

4 his hta naawv kcu hia rrcvrc -r. 

a Cf Aulus Gellius, i, xx, 6 ; Favonius Eulogius, De 
Somnio Scipionis, p. 12, 2-4 (Holder) ; and Chalcidius, 
Platonis Timaeus, p. 180, 20-21 (Wrobel) = p. 160, 9-10 
(Waszink). The period of 27£ days, also mentioned by 
Chalcidius (p. 137, 17-20 [Wrobel] = p. 117, 11-13 [Waszink]), 
is the approximate tropical month : cf Geminus, Elementa 
Astronomiae i, 30 (p. 12, 24-27 [ Manitius]) ; Pliny, N.H. ii, 
44 ; Theon Smyrnaeus, p. 136, 1-3 (Hiller) ; Macrobius, 
In Somnium Scipionis i, vi, 50. 

b See ra /xeAojSovueva . . . hiacmjfMaTa in 1019 a infra with 
note / there ; and for to. iptieXr} Stao-nj/iara cf Dionysius 
Musicus in Porphyry, In Ptolernaei Harmonica, p. 37, 19-20 
(During) and Gaudentius, Harmonica Introductio 3 (Musici 
Scriptores Graeci, p. 330, 11-16 [Jan]). 

e Cf Boethius, De Institutions Musica in, v (pp. 276, 
15-277, 1 and p. 277, 16-18 [Friedlein]) = Philolaus, frag. 
A 26 (I, p. 405, 8-15 and 27-28 [D.-K.]). In fact, if the fifth, 



moon a ; and of the melodious intervals b the tone is 
assigned to this number by the Pythagoreans, which 
is also why they call thirteen " leimma," d for it falls 
short of the half by a unit/ And it is easy to see 
that these numbers also comprise the ratios of the 
consonances/ For the ratio of two to one is duple, 
in which the octave consists, and that of three to two 
is sesquialteran, in which the fifth consists, and that 
of four to three is sesquitertian, in which the fourth 
consists, and that of nine to three is triple, in which 
consists the octave plus a fifth, and that of eight to 
two is quadruple, in which the double octave consists ; 

fourth, and tone be raised to their least common denominator, 
the numerator of the tone is 27. 

d See 1017 f supra (page 273, notec). The " leimma " is 
the ratio 256-243 but was then identified with the difference 
between these two numbers, as is stated in 1022 a infra 
(to /zcrafv riov opy' Kal ra>v av<z' . . .) and Boethius, De 
Institutione Musica in, v (p. 277, 5-7 [Friedlein]) = Philolaus, 
frag. A 26 (I, p. 405, 19-20 [D.-K.]), a mistake of which 
Theon Smyrnaeus was aware despite his tendency to fall into 
it himself (p. 67, 13-16 and p. 69, 3-14 [Hiller]). 

• The same explanation of the term " leimma," though 
without the additional mistake of ^ovdhi (for not thirteen but 
that of which it is a half falls short of twenty-seven by a unit), 
is given in 1020 f infra (. . . on rod ij/woreos' aTroActVct) and 
by Chalcidius (Platonis Timaeus, p. 112, 11-12 [Wrobel] = 
p. 94, 10-11 [Waszink]) and Gaudentius (Harmonica Intro- 
ductio 14= Musici Scriptores Graeci, p. 343, 6-10 [Jan]); 
but the correct explanation, i.e. that it means " the re- 
mainder " after two tones have been measured off from a 
fourth (cf. Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum ii, p. 177, 10-13 
and pp. 182, 30-183, 2 [Diehl] ; Theon Smyrnaeus, p. 70, 
3-6 [Hiller]), is given in 1022 a infra (. . . ircpUorL . . . Sto Kal 
Aet/xjLta aW/xa£ov). 

f Cf. Theon Smyrnaeus, p. 95, 14-16 (Hiller) ; for what 
follows see De E 389 d and cf. Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum 
ii, p. 168, 2-8 (Diehl) and Macrobius, In Somnium Scipionis 
ii, i, 15-20. 



(1018) irroySoos 6 1 tcjv ivvea rrpos tol oktoj 2 iv to to to- 
viaiov. av tolvvv r) novas €7tlkoivos ovoa Kal tols 

apTLOlS OVVCLpldljLfJTCU* KOI TOls 7T€plTTOl?, 6 \xh> 

anas apidjJios to ttjs SckolSos Trape^eTai 7rXrj8os 
(ol yap o\tt6 fAovdSos ^XP L ra ^ v SeVa avvTiOefjievoi 


1019 a/ortos*) 4 rrevTCKaiheKa, Tpiyojvov drro rrevTaSos, 6 


€K tcov SeKaTpitbv Kal to)V kQ yevvojfxevov, ols rd 
fieXcoSovjJieva pieTpovaiv evarjpuos 5 ol p,a6r) jtxar ikoI 
StaoTrjfiaTa to [lev SUoiv to 8e tovov koXovvtzs, 
KaTa tov 7ToXXa7rXaacaaiJi6v Se Trj ttjs T€TpaKTVOs 
Svvd/xei yiyvofxevov, tcov ydp wpojTOJV Teoadpojv 
Ka8* avTov €kolotov T€TpaKis Xapi^avofievov yiyve- 

1 6 -E, B ; omitted by all other mss. and Aldine. 

2 ra>v ivvio. jrpos rd oktcj -Bernardakis (rrpos rd oktw t<Zv 
ivvia -Maurommates) ; rcov oktoj (r)' -B, f, in, r) -rrpos ra Q' 
(ivvea -E) -mss. 

3 E, B (first i over erasure), f, m; owapLdpciTcu -e, Al- 
dine ; ovvapdfjL€LTai -T ; ovvapi^nai -u ; ovvapiOeiTai -Escor. 


4 <. . .> added by H. C. after Bernardakis (ra rrevre Kal 

TT€VTT]KOVra TTOlOVOl' TOVTOJV $€ TtoXlV 6 fA€V dpTlOS TO.) and 

similar supplements by Wyttenbach and B. Miiller (1873); 
ovvTidepicvoi . . . vac. 50 -E ; vac. 48 -B . . . 7T€VT€Kai$€Ka -E, 
B ; ovvTi94pievoi\ irevTeKaioeKa -e, u, Escor. 72 ; ovvriQsp.€voi 
i€ (without lacuna) -f, m, r, Aldine. 

5 €vpv9 hojs -B. 

° See.jD^ E 388 A (. . . ^ pkv fJLOVaS dfJi(f)OT€pCJV iTTLKOlVOS 

ion rfj Swdfi€i) and 1027 e supra (page 269, note a) ; <f. 
Theon Smyrnaeus, p. 95, 8-9 (lliller) and Chaleidius, 
Platonis Timaeus, p. 104, 16-25 (Wrobel) = pp. S7, 23-88, 4 

b With what follows, i.e. 1 + 2+3.. . + 10 = 55 = (1 + 2+4 
+ 8 [ = 15])+(l + 3+9+27 [ = 40]) cf. Anatolius in Iam- 
blichus, Theolog. Arith., p. 86, 10-18 (De Falco). 


and among them also that of nine to eight is sesqui- 
octavan, in which the interval of the tone consists. If, 
then, the unit, which is common to the even numbers 
and the odd/ 7 be counted along with both, the number 
taken all together b gives the sum of the decad (for 
the numbers from one to ten added together (make 
fifty-five), and of this the even number gives) fifteen, 
a triangular number from five, c while the odd number 
gives forty, by addition produced from thirteen and 
twenty-seven, numbers which the mathematicians , d 
calling the former " diesis " and the latter " tone," 6 
make distinct measures of the melodic intervals/ but 
by multiplication arising in virtue of the tetractys, 7 
for, when each of the first four by itself is multiplied 
5(54. i\ 
c i.e. 15 = ~~- — -. Cf Theon Smyrnaeus, p. 38, 11-11 

(Hiller) and sec note e on Plat. Quaest. 1003 f supra. 

d i.e. ol livdayopiKoi of 1018 e supra. See 1020 e-f infra, 
where ol fitv app.oviKoi . . . ol he YlvdayopLKol — tols /xcv ap/xovi- 
koZs . . . Tots"8€ ixaO-qfiariKols, and 1021 n infra (. . . opOcos vtto 
raiv jxadrjixariKcov AeipL/xa TTpooiqyopevrai) . 

e See 1018 e supra with notes c and d there. As to the use 
of " diesis " here for what is there called " leimma " cf. 
Theon Smyrnaeus, pp. 55, 13-15 and 56, 18-57, 1 (Hiller) ; 
Chalcidius, Platonis Timaeus, p. 112, 9-10 (\Vrobel) = p. 94, 
8-9 (Waszink) ; Macrobius, In Somnium Sciptonis n, i, 23 ; 
Boethius, De Institutione Musica n, xxviii (p. 260, 21-25 
[Friedlein]) and in, v (p. 277, 1-5 [Friedlein] = Philolaus, 
frag. A 26 [i, p. 405, 15-19, D.-K.]) with Philolaus, frag. B 6 
(i, p. 410, 2-8 [D.-K.]). 

1 Cf. twv ififieAwv hiaoTTjiiaTaiv . . . top tovov . . . (1018 E 
supra) and SiaaTTj/za iv /acAodSio. . . . rwv Se StacrT^ttarcuv . . . 
tow? (1020 e infra). In De E 389 e-f and De Defectu Orac. 
430 a Plutarch counts five tieXa&ovfieva StacrTr/^ara, distin- 
guishing Steo-t? as the quarter-tone from rjp.iroviov {cf. Theon 
Smyrnaeus, p. 55, 11-13 [Hiller]). 

9 Not the Platonic " tetractys " but, as is clear from what 
follows, the quaternary of the first four numbers. 



(1019) rat 8' /cat 77' /cat tjS' /cat is*', ravra rov 1 p! avv- 
rlOrjai 7TepL€Xovra tovs rcov ovp,tj)LoviLov Xoyovs' rd 
jjiev yap i$ r irrirpira rcov Se/caSi/o iorlv rcov 8' 
o/cra) 8t7rAacrta, tojc 8e reoadptov 2 rerpairXdoia, rd 
B (Se) 3 tj8' rcov o/ctoj rjfJuoXia rcov 8e reoodpcov rpi- 
TrXdaia. ovroi Se oi Xoyoi ro Sta, reoodpcov /cat to 
Sta tt€vt€ /cat to Sta. rraocov /cat to Sts Sta. rraocov 
7T€pL€Xovaiv. loos ye psr\v ioriv 6 rcov reooapd- 
Kovra 8vol* rerpaycovois 5 /cat Svol Kvfiois opiov 
Xapi^avofievots' ro yap ev /cat rd reooapa /cat rd 
o/ctoj /cat rd /c£' /cujSot /cat rerpdycovoi {ft') 6 yty- 
vovr ai owTtdevres. 7 wore ttoXv rrjs TlvdayopiKrjs 
tt)v UXarcoviKrjv rerpaKTVv rroiKiXcorepav etvat T77 
SiaOeoei /cat reXeiorepav . 

15. 'AAAct Tat? eloayofievats jjl€o6ttjoi rcov vtto- 

K€ifi€va)v dpidpicov ^alpa? ou StSoVrojv, iSerjoe p,€i- 

t,ovas opovs AajSetv ev Tots* avrots Aoyot?. /cat 

C XcktIov rives elolv ovroi. rrporepov 8e irepl rcov 

fJL€OOT^TCOV COV TTjV fl€V tocp Kar dpiOfJLOV VTT€p- 

1 ravra §€ rov -E, B. 2 ra>v 8' -E, B. 

8 <8e> -added by B. Mtiller (1873). 

4 Svol -Bernardakis ; Bvotv -E, B, f, m, r ; Sveiv -e, u, 
Escor. 72. 

5 rerpayaivoiv -f (-ycovoiv), m 1 , r. 

6 <//> -added by Maurommates. 

7 E ; avvri0€vr€s -all other mss., Aldine. 

a The octave plus a fifth (12-4), though expressly included 
in 1018 e-f supra as the ratio of nine to three, the triple 
ratio, is (inadvertently ?) omitted here, as it is by the mss. of 
Chalcidius, Platonis Timaeus, p. 101, 4-5 (Wrobel) = p. 84, 
22-23 (Waszink). 

b Since eight and twenty-seven are cubic numbers, one 
and four must be the two square numbers {cf. De Defectu 
Orac. 429 E [. , . npwrwv Svciv r€rpaya>vwv . . . rrjs t€ fiovdftos 


by four, the result is four and eight and twelve and 
sixteen. These make up the number forty while 
comprising the ratios of the consonances, for sixteen 
is four thirds of twelve and twice as much as eight 
and four times as much as four, <(and) twelve is half 
again as much as eight and three times as much as 
four ; and these ratios comprise the fourth and the 
fifth and the octave and the double octave. Then, 
as to the number forty, it is equal to two square and 
two cubic numbers taken together, for one and four 
and eight and twenty-seven are cubic and square 
numbers b amounting to <^ forty) when they have been 
added together. Consequently the Platonic tetractys 
is much more intricate and consummate in organisa- 
tion than is the Pythagorean. 

15. Since, however, the numbers postulated do not 
provide room for the means that are being inserted, 
it was necessary to take higher terms in the same 
ratios. d So one must say what these are. Before 
that, however, about the means e : of these the one 

Kai tt)s T€Tpd&os] and De E 391 a), though one has just been 
treated as a cubic number (see 1018 c supra with note a 
on page 281). 

c See 1017 d, note b supra. 

d The " numbers postulated " are tcov xmo HXdrcovos ckkci- 
fi€vcuv dpidfxcjv (1017 d supra). See 1020 a infra y where 
after the digression on the means the substance of the 
present sentence is rephrased more clearly ; and cf. Chal- 
cidius, Platonis Timaeus, pp. 106, 24r-107, 2 (Wrobel) = 
p. 89, 19-21 (Waszink). 

• With what follows cf. Nicomachus, Harmonices Man. 
8 (Musici Scriptores Graeci* pp. 250, 12-251, 3 and p. 251, 
10-13 [Jan}); Philo Jud., De Opificio Mundi 108-110 (i, 
pp. 38, 19-39, 11 [Cohn]); Chalcidius, Platonis Timaeus, 
p. 107, 2-20 (Wrobel) = pp. 89, 22-90, 12 (Waszink); 
Martianus Capella, vii, 737. 



(1019) exovaav loco Se VTrepexofievrjv dpcdfJLrjriKrjV ol vvv 
KaXovai ttjv be ravrcp /xe'pet rcov aKpcov avrcov 
VTTepexovaav /cat VTrepexofievrjv vrrevavriav. Spot 
8' eiol rijs fiev apiOpLrjTiKrjs $' /cat d' /cat tjS', ra 
yap evvea rco loco /car' apidpiov rcov e£ vrrepex^i 
/cat rcov ij8' AetVerar rfjs oe virevavrias s'' t] t/3', 
rd yap oktco Svol 1 fiev rcov g' vnepex* 1 reooapoi 
oe rcov tj3' Aeiirerai, cov rd fiev 8vo rcov e£ ra Se 
reooapa rcov otboeKa rpLrrjfiopiov ion. ovfifiefir)- 
Kev ovv iv 2 fiev rrj apidjJLrjTiKrj ravrcp 3 fiepeL rd 4, 
D fieoov 5 virepex^odai /cat vTrepex €lv * v °e rfj virev- 
avria ravrcp fiepeL rcov aKpcov rod fiev aTToSeZv 
ro* Se vTrepfidAAeiv, e/cet fiev ydp rd rpia rod fieoov 
rpirov eorl fiepos 1 evravda Se rd S' /cat ra fi' rcov 
aKpcov eKarepov eKarepov odev vixevavrla /ce'/cArj- 

1 E, B ; bvo -all other mss., Aldine. 2 -q -r. 

3 tw aKpw -U ; ra> avTw -all other mss. 

4 fM€p€L TOJV CLKptOV TO "E, B. 

5 /jitoov -correction in margin -f 1 , ni\ r 1 , Leonicus ; Xaov 
(or Taov) -mss. 

6 to -Turnebus ; toO -r ; to> -all other mss., Aldine. 

7 fieoov (with final v remade to s) -«. 

a i.e. exceeds one extreme and falls short of the other. 
This is clear in Timaeus 36 a 4-5 (quoted in 1027 b-c supra) 
because this clause is preceded by that which defines the 
harmonic mean and which contains rcov aKpcov. 

b Though Plutarch here says that v-nevavrla is the term 
used for the harmonic mean by his contemporaries and so 
uses it in paraphrasing Eudorus (1019 e infra), Iamblichus 
says (In Nicomachi Arithmeticam Introduction m, pp. 100, 
22-101, 5 and p. 1 13, 16-22 [Pistelli]) that what was originally 
called viTzvavria was renamed apfjLoviKrj by the circle of 
Archytas and Hippasus (cf. Archytas, frag. B 2 [D.-K.] = 
Porphyry, In Ptolemaei Harmonica, p. 93, 7 and 13-17 
[During]) and that afterwards the name vixevavrla was 
applied to a new, fourth mean, thought to be contrary to the 



that exceeds and falls short a by amounts numerically 
equal men today call arithmetical, and the one that 
exceeds and falls short of the extremes by the same 
fraction of them they call subcontrary. & Of the 
arithmetical six and nine and twelve are terms, for 
nine exceeds six and falls short of twelve by numerical 
equality ; and of the subcontrary six, eight, twelve 
are terms, for eight exceeds six by two and falls 
short of twelve by four, and of these two is a third 
of six and four a third of twelve. So it is characteristic 
in the arithmetical for the middle to exceed and fall 
short by the same fraction c and in the subcontrary 
for it to be inferior to one of the extremes and to 
surpass the other by the identical fraction of them, 
for in the former case three is a third of the middle 
and in the latter four and two are thirds, one of one 
extreme and the other of the other, for which reason 
it has been called subcontrary. d And to this they 

harmonic {cf. Nicomachus, Arithmetica Introductio it, 
xxviii, 3 = p. 141, 4-16 [Hoche] and Theon Smyrnaeus, 
p. 115,9-11 [Hiller]). 

c i.e. by the same fraction of itself. Cf. Nicomachus, 
Arithmetica Introductio n, xxv, 3 (p. 132, 18-20 [Hoche] 
and for the whole of Plutarch's sentence ibid., pp. 132, 
18-133, 2) ; Iamblichus, In Nicomachi Arithmeticam Intro- 
ductionem, p. 114, 5-8 (Pistelli). 

d Cf. Iamblichus, In Nicomachi Arithmeticam Intro- 
ductionem, p. 110, 17-23 with pp. 100, 25-101, 1 (Pistelli) 
and Nicomachus, Arithmetica Introductio u, xxv, 3 (p. 132, 
21-22 [Hoche]). The contrariety is identified with another 
characteristic by Iamblichus, op. cit., p. Ill, 18-26 and 
Boethius, De Institutione Arithmetica n, xlvii (p. 152, 27-31 
[Friedlein]) ; cf. Nicomachus, op. cit. n, xxiii, 6 and xxv, 
2 (pp. 126, 1-6 and 132, 11-15 [Hoche]). E. de Strycker 
(Antiquite Classique, xxi [1952], p. 531, n. 1) defended the 
latter explanation; Burkert (Weisheit und Wissenschaft, 
p. 418, n. 98) proposed still another. 



(1019) rat. ravrrjv Se 1 apfioviKrjv ovofid^ovaiv ore rots 
opois tcl Trpcjra av/ji<f)a)va 7ra/)e^eTat, rto \ikv fie- 

opoi rrjs apidfirjTiKrjs 2 



TU>V ££ V7T*p€Xei KO.L TtUV 


opoi Tijs vntravnas fj ttjs d/>/40vin"*jS 


1 rr)v avrrjv S* -B. M tiller (1873) ; ravrrjv §€ <*ai> -Hubert. 

2 The two figures as here -E (lower margin) ; 
o r rj 

? ^NXA£/7^ and *^LAJt/7 i £ ~ e ' Escor - 72 (hoth 

in side margin) ; figures omitted by all other mss. 


give the name harmonic because by its terms it 
exhibits the primary concords, by the greatest in 

Terms of the arithmetical 

Terms of the subcontrary or harmonic 



° Cf. Iamblichus, In Nicomachi Arithmeticam Introduc- 
tions, p. 100, 23-25 (Pistelli) and Nicomachus, Arithmetica 
Introductio n, xxvi, 2 (pp. 135, 10-136, 11 [Hoche]) ; for 
ra 7rptoTa aviufxjova see page 275, note d supra. 



(1019) ylarco rrpos tov iXdx^rov to 8lcl ttolocdv tu> Se 
lieyloTto 1 rrpos rov 2, fieaov to Sid rrevTe t& Se 
fievco rrpos tov z eAd^tcrrw to Sid reoodpajv, on 4 
tov jieytoTOV Ttbv opcov Kara vtjttjv TiOefievov tov 
S' iXax^OTOv kclO* vTraTTjv 6 Lieoos ylyverai d 6 
E kclto. fjLeorjv rrpos Lieu 6 tov \1iy10Tov 1 to* Sid rrevre 
rroiovoav rrpos Se tov eAd^tcrrov 9 to 10 Std Teoodpwv 
ojot€ y[yv€o0ai rd oktoj /card ttjv \xior\v to, Se 
Sa>Se/<a Kara vqrrjv 11 tol Se e£ kolO* vrraTrjv. 

16. Tov 8e Tporrov to Xapifidvovot rds elp-qpievas 
pL€GOT7)Tas drrXws kcli oa(f>a>s Ev8a)pos aTTo8eiK- 

WOl. OK07T€L Sc TTpOTCpOV €776 T7)S dpi9pL7]TlK7JS . 

av yap e/c#et9 tovs aKpovs Xdfirjs eKarepov 12 to 
yjfjuov fxepos koll ovvdfjs, 6 ovvredels eorai peoos ev 
re toZs 13 StrrXaoiois kcli toZs TpirrXaoiois 6poia>s. 
irrl Se rrjs vrrevavrias , eV fxkv toZs 8irrXaoiois dv 


F tov Se fjbeil^ovos to rjpuov Xdprjs, 6 orvvTeOels 15 
yiyverai jjlzoos' eV Se Tots' TpirrXaoiois 1 * dvdrraXiv 
tov jjiev iXdrrovos tJjjlictv Set AajSetv tov Se /xet- 
^ovos TpcTov, 6 yap ovvredels ovtw yiyverai peoos. 
eoTOJ yap iv TpirrXaoioj Xoyoj tol $?' eAd^taro? opos 

1 Ttpos tov eXdxKJTov to bid naawv rto be fieyiGToj -omitted 

by f. 

2 tov -E (v superscript -E 1 ), B ; to -all other mss., Aldine. 

3 to -r. 

4 odev -B. Muller (1873) ; In -Hubert (who also suggests 
deleting on . . . rd be e£ koiO' vttolttjv as a marginal note). 

5 6 -deleted by B. Muller (1873). 

6 fiev -omitted by r. 

7 -nods /xev rr)v vrjT-qv -B. Muller (1873). 8 tov -r, Aldine. 
9 to iXdxicrTov -r ; ttjv virdT7]v -B. Muller (1873). 

10 to -E, B, r ; omitted by all other mss. and Aldine. 

11 Kara tt)v vt)tx)v -f, m, r. 12 eKarcpov -r. 



relation to the least the octave and by the greatest in 
relation to the middle term the fifth and by the middle 
term in relation to the least the fourth, because, the 
greatest of the terms being placed at nete and the 
least at hypate, the middle term turns out to be that 
at mese, mese in relation to the greatest making the 
fifth and in relation to the least the fourth, so that 
eight turns out to be at the mese and twelve at nete 
and six at hypate. 

16. The way the aforesaid means are found is set 
forth simply and clearly by Eudorus. a Of the two 
consider first the arithmetical. If you set out the 
extreme terms and take the half of each and add the 
two halves together, the resulting sum will be the 
middle term in the case of the double numbers and 
of the triple alike. 6 In the case of the subcontrary, c 
however, if in the double numbers you set out the 
extreme terms and take the third of the lesser and 
the half of the greater, their sum turns out to be the 
middle term ; but in the triple numbers contrariwise 
you must take half of the lesser and a third of the 
greater, for the sum of this addition turns out to be 
the middle term. For let six be least term and 

a See note c on 1013 b supra. 

b Cf. Plutarch, Quaest. Conviv. 738 d (. . . avvreddma §' 
aXXr^Xois 8iiTAa<7ia£ei rov (idoov) ; Nicomachus, Arithmetica 
Introductio n, xxvii, 7 (pp. 139, 23-140, 2 [Hoche]) ; Theon 
Smyrnaetis, p. 113, 22-25 and p. 116, 11-13 and 20-22 

c See note b on 1019 c supra. 

13 rot? -omitted by f, m, r. 

14 av dels -r. 

15 avvTidels -r. 

18 iv 8e tols TptTrActorioc? . . . ovto) yLyvvTai jj.€go9 -omitted 
by u. 



(1019) Ta Se it) [Aeyiaros' av ovv tcov ST* to rjpuov Xaficov 
ra rpia /cat tcov oktco /cat Se/ca to rpirov tcl i* 
avvdijs, 1 €^€is tcl 6' 2 ravrcp fiepei tcov aKpcov virep- 
exovra /cat vrrepexofieva. 3 ovtcos p,kv at pL€ooT7]T€s 
1020 Aa/zjSdVovTat. Set S' auras €/cet rrapevTa^at* /cat 
ava7r\rjpcocrcu ra 8t7rAaata /cat TpnrXaaia StaarrJ- 
pbara. tcov 8 €KK€i[i€Vcov apiOficov ol fiev ov8e 
oXcos ft€Ta^u ycopav zyovoiv ol S' ov^ iKavrjv 
olv£ovt€s ovv clvtovs, 5 tcov owtcov Xoycov Sta/zevoV- 
tcov, VTTohox&S rroiovoiv apKovoas rat? elprjpLevais 
IL€got7)oi* /cat rrpcoTov pev eXd^iOTOV dvrt 6 tov 

eVOS TCL e£ 0€VT€S, €7T6t TTpCOTOS TjpLlOV T€ /Cat TplTOV 

e^£t pepos, arravTas i^onrXaolovs tovs V7TOT€Tay- 
p,evovs eiroiTjoav, 7 a>? vnoyiypavrTTai? 8exopLevovs 
to\s pL€ooT7)Tas apLcfroTepas /cat Tot? 8i7tXclolols 8ta- 
(jr^/xaat /cat rot? TpnrXaoiOLS* elpr] kotos 8e tov 

1 E, B, e corr - (s* added over cancellation), u ; avvdrj -f, m, 
r, e\ Escor. 72. 

2 ra 6' -e, u, f, m, r, Escor. 72, Aldine ; tov ivvea -E ; 
rov 0' -B. 

3 e, u, f, m, r, Escor. 72, Aldine ; vnepexofievov -E, B. 

4 7rap€VT4£ai -e, u, Escor. 72K 

5 aurovs -omitted by B 1 (added superscript -B 2 ). 

6 f, m, r ; 6vri -all other mss., Aldine. 

7 €1T0L7]O€V "E, B. 

8 The figure (p. 298) -E (lower margin) ; the figure with 
numbers but without words -e, u, f, m, Escor. 72 (all in side 
margins) ; figure omitted by B, r. 

9 koX tois TpnrAaaiots -f, m (added in margin by m 1 ), r ; 
omitted by all other mss. 

a The general method of finding the harmonic mean (m), 

where of the extremes c>a> is given as h a by Nico- 

a +c 



eighteen greatest in a triple ratio : then, if of six you 
take the half, three, and of eighteen the third, six, 
and add them together, you will have nine, which 
exceeds and falls short of the extremes by the same 
fraction of them. This is the way the means are 
found ; but one must insert them in that designated 
position and fill up the double and triple intervals. 5 
Of the numbers set out, c however, some do not have 
any room at all between them and others do not have 
enough ; so by increasing them with the same ratios 
preserved people produce sufficient accommodations 
for the aforesaid means. d First, for one they sub- 
stituted as the smallest number six, since it is the 
first that has both a half and a third ; and all those 
ranged underneath, as drawn below, they made six 
times as large with room to admit both the means to 
the double intervals and the triple too. e Plato has 

machus (Arithmetica Introductio n, xxvii, 7 = p. 140, 8-13 
[Hoche]), Theon Smyrnaeus (p. 119, 3-16 [Hillerl), and 
Proclus (In Platonis Timaeum li, p. 172, 11-18 and pp. 172, 
21-173, 4 [Diehl]). None of them gives the simpler formula- 
ic ac 

tion, m = , although this is implicit in the statement that 


the sum of the extremes multiplied by the mean equals twice 
the product of the extremes, i.e. m(a+c) = 2ac, made both 
by Nicomachus (op. cit. n, xxv, 4 = p. 133, 5-8 [Hoche] and 
Harmonices Man. S=Musici Scriptores GraecU p« 251, 3-10 
[Jan]) and by Theon Smyrnaeus (pp. 114, 25-115, 4 

b Cf. Timaeus 35 c 2 — 36 a 5 quoted at 1027 b-c supra. 

c See 1019 b supra (chap. 15 init.) with note d there. 

d Cf. 1027 d supra (chap. 30 init.) : . . . dpi0/xois . . . x^P a ? 
€xovoi SeKTiKas /x^Tafv tlov ^Ipr^fxivajv dvaXoytwv. . . . 

• Cf. Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum ii, pp. 175, 22-176, 
27 (Diehl); Iamblichus, Theolog. Arith., p. 51, 8-15 and 
pp. 51, 25-52, 5 (De Falco) ; Chalcidius, Platonis Timaeus, 
pp. 106, 24^110, 2 (Wrobel) = pp. 89, 19-92, 5 (Waszink). 





f 7 


V 7 ? \ 

M 7 


nAaTCoyo? " r^paoXiajv Se Siaardaeajv /cat eiriTpirajv 
B /cat €7roy8oa)v yevofievajv e/c 1 toutojv raV Secr/xcov 
€V rats' Trpoodev otaarao-ccrt, to> 2 rod €7royS6ov Sta- 
arrjfjLaTL rd eirirpira rrdvra avv€7rXrjpovro XeLrrwv* 
avrojv c/caoroi/ fiopiov, rfjs rod 5 fioplov Tavrrjs 
StaaTacrea)? XeKfrOeiorjs* dpidpcov 7rpos dptOpiov c^ov- 
or)s rovs opou? $' /cat t>' /cat a' 7 npos y' 8 /cat /u/* 
/cat a ," 10 Sta ravrrjv ttjv Ae'£tv ryvay/ca^ovro wdXiv 
rot)? dpidpiovs irravdyeiv /cat pLel^ovas TTotelv. eSet 
jjiev yap i<j)€£rjs irroySoa ylyveodai Svo* rrjs Se 
e^aoos* ovt avrouev €7royooov €Xovcrr)s, €l re t€[jl- 
volto, KepfiarL^opievcov et? fiopta rtov fiovdStov, 
SvadecoprjTOV rrjs pLadrjoecDS iaopi€vr)s, avro 11 to 
C TrpaypLa top 7ToXXa7rXaaiaa/ji6v 12 vTnqyopevoev y coo- 

1 E, B, f, m, r ; els -e, u, Escor. 72, Aldine. 

2 Staaracratat to -U. 

3 f, m, r ; crvv€7r\rjpov to Xetirov -all other mss. 

4 f, m, r ; eKaorcp -all other mss. 

5 rfjs §€ rov -f, m, r. 

6 Xr](j>d€L07]S ~E, B. 

7 !£ Kal fT€vrr\KovTa. Kal SiaKoaia -E, B ; . . . hiaKoalojv -1027 c 
supra and Timaeus 36 b 4. 

8 irpos rpia irpos rpia -E 1 (first two words cancelled). 

9 7rpo9 rpia fc -u. 

10 irpos rpia Kal reaaapaKovra Kal SiaKoata -E, B. 



\ 162 

said, however, " since as a result of these links in 
the previous intervals there came to be intervals of 
three to two and of four to three and of nine to 
eight, he filled in all the intervals of four to three 
with the interval of nine to eight leaving a fraction 
of each of them, this remaining interval of the 
fraction having the terms of the numerical ratio 256 
to 243 " ; and because of this passage they were 
compelled again to raise the numbers and make them 
larger. For next in succession there had to come two 
sesquioctavans b ; but, as six of itself does not have a 
sesquioctavan and, if it should be divided with the 
units broken up into fractions/ understanding the 
subject would be an obscure matter, * the situation 
itself prescribed the multiplication, just as in har- 

° Timaeus 36 a 6-b 5 quoted at 1027 c supra. 

b Cf. Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum ii, pp. 176,27-177, 3 
(Diehl) ; Theon Smyrnaeus, p. 67, 16-21 (Hiller) ; Chal- 
cidius, Platonis Timaeus, pp. 115, 6-116, 8 (Wrobel) = p. 97, 
3-24 (Waszink). 

c Cf Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum ii, p. 177, 21 (Diehl) : 
. . . rots CLTfj/qTov ttjv fjLovdSa <f>v\a.TT€iv del fiouXofievois. 

d Cf. 1027 E supra : ... dfivSpav rroiet ttjv ftdOrjaiv .... 

11 avrw -u. 
18 f, m, r ; noXuTrXaaiaafMov -all other mss. 



(1020) 7T€p iv apiioviKrj pLerafioXj} rod Staypa/x/xaros' oXov 
GVvemrewofjLevov rto TTpajrco rwv dpidfitdv. 6 fxkv 
ovv lliiiScopos iTTOLKoAovdrjaas Kpavro/n rrpwrov 
eAa/?€ rov tttS' ' , os y iyver ai rov e£ irrl rd £S' 770A- 
XaTrXaoiaodevTOS* €7rrjydy€ro 8* avrovs 6 ra>v £8' 
apidjjLos 1 irroySoov exojv rov ojS'. 2 rols 8e vtto rod 
YlXdrojvos Aeyopbevois ovfi<f)a)v6r€p6v ionv vrro- 
deodat ro rjpuov rovrov to yap 3 Aei/xxia to 4 tcDj/ 
erroySocov e£ei Xoyov ev apidpLols ovs 6 riAarcov 

€iprjK€V S*' Kol V KOX O TtpOS y' KCLL p! Kol a' , TCOV 

D p9j8' 7TpojTa>v Tidepbevcov. av 8e 6 rovrov birrXd- 
glos redfj 5 rrpcbros, eorcu ro Aci/x/xa Xoyov p,ev €X ov 
rov avrov dpiOfiov 8e rov 8nrXdoiov, ov €X €L Ta $ l ft 
rrpos vtt$' q ' yiyverat yap errirpira rcjv p,kv p^fi' 7 

1 apidfiovs -u. 

2 rov o/?' -B ; rov or] rrpos rov o$ -E 1 (rov or) rrpos can- 
celled) ; rov 77 /cat o (o -f, m, r) rrpos rov o/? -all other mss. 

3 rovrov, ro yap -f, m, r ; rovrov (rplrov -B) yap ro -all 
other mss. 

4 to -Maurommates ; rov -mss. 

5 rcOrj -r. 

6 E, B, e, u, Escor. 72 (with S superscript over ?) ; vob' 
-f, m, r ; vrrh' -Aldine. 

7 psF -u. 

a Cf. Ptolemy, Harmonica, pp. 54, 13-55, 1 and p. 55 t 
4-5 and 7-9 (During). 

6 Crantor, frag. 5 (Kayser) = frag. 5 (Mullach, Frag. 
Philos. Graec. iii, pp. 141-143). Plutarch's expression sug- 
gests that his immediate source was Eudorus (see note a on 
1019 e supra). 

c Cf " Timaeus Locrus " 96 b ; Theon Smyrnaeus, 
pp. 68, 12-69, 3 (Hiller) ; Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum ii, 
p. 178, 2-11 (Diehl). The integer 384 is mentioned by 
Chalcidius too (Platonis Timaeus, pp. 116, 19-117, 1 
[Wrobel] = p. 98, 9-11 [Waszink]) but only in passing as 



monic transposition the whole scale is raised in pitch 
along with the first of the numbers. Eudorus, then, 
following Crantor b took as the first of the numbers 
S84, c which is the product of six multiplied by 64 ; 
and they were attracted by the number 64 because 
it has 72 as sesquioctavan. d It is more in accord with 
Plato's words, however, to assume the half of this 
number, for the " leimma " that is left after the 
sesquioctavans are taken e will have its ratio ex- 
pressed in the numbers that Plato has given, 256 to 
243, if 192 is made the first number/ If the double 
of this be made the first number, the " leimma " will 
be the same in ratio, to be sure, but double in number, 
being as 512 is to 486, for four thirds of 192 come to 

another possibility. Severus adopted 768, twice 384, in 
order to make the whole scale end with a " leimma " 
(Proclus, op. Git., ii, pp. 191, 1-192, 12 [Diehl]). 

d Contrast Theon Smyrnaeus, pp. 68, 13-69, 1 (Hiller) 
and Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum ii, p. 177, 3-7 (Diehl). 

e Cf. 1022 a infra {d<f>atpovfi€vov Se tovtov [sail, Bltovov] 
TrepUart rod oXov . . .) and Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum ii, 
p. 177, 10-13 (Diehl). 

' So it was by Theon Smyrnaeus (pp. 67, 21-68, 12 and 
86, 15-87, 3 [Hiller], with which cf. Porphyry, In Ptolemaei 
Harmonica, p. 130, 9-16 [Diiring]), by Chalcidius {Platonis 
Timaeus, pp. 116, 12-118, 3 [Wrobel] = pp. 98, 3-99, 9 
[Waszink]), and by Aristides Quintilianus {De Musica hi, 1 
[p. 96, 25-28, Winnington-Ingram]). Plutarch's argument 
for 192 (see 1021 f — 1022 a infra, and cf. Theon Smyrnaeus, 
p. 69, 3-6 [Hiller]) is invalid, however, first because Plato 
speaks only of ratios {cf. Theon Smyrnaeus, p. 69, 7-9 
[Hiller], and see note d on 1018 e supra) and furthermore 
because 192 would not serve the purpose of clearing fractions 
after the first fourth but in the second would give 288, 324, 
364£ {cf. Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum ii, p. 177, 8-30 
[Diehl]), as Chalcidius himself duly records without re- 
cognizing the implication of it {loc. cit., pp. 117, 18-118, 3 
[Wrobel] = p. 99, 6-9 [Waszink]). 



(1020) rd ovg' rcov 1 Se rrr8' rd <£tj8\ /cat ovk dXoyos r/ 
em rovrov dvayojyrj rov dpidfidv 2 dXXa /cat rots 
nepl rov KpdvTopa Trapaoxovaa to* evXoyov rd 
yap £8' /cat KvfSos eorlv drrd TTpojrov rerpayojvov 
/cat rerpdycovos air 6 Trpwrov Kvfiov yevofxevos S' 
em, rov y , 4 irpcorov ovra rrepiTTOv 5 /cat rrpajrov rpl- 
ycovov /cat Trptorov reXetov ovra /cat rjfuoXcov, p^/3' 
E 7T€7TolrjK€v, k'xpvra /cat avrov eVoySoov, a)? §£t- 

17. IlpoTepov §€ rt to Aet/x/xa eort /cat rtV 17 
SidVota to£» nAcrrxovos" ftaAAov Karoi/jeoBe rtbv eta>- 
dorcov €V rats YlvdayoptKals a^oAat? XeyeoOat, 
fSpa%eo>s V7Top,vr}o6evT€s. k'ori ya/> Staar^jLta ev 
lieXcoola rrdv to Trepieyp^vov vtto Svelv (j)66yya)v 
dvofioiojv rfj rdaei- rcov Se Stacrr^/xarajv ev o /ca- 

1 E, B, f, m, r ; rd -e, u, Escor. 72, Aldine. 


2 tovtojv dvayojyia twv dpiQp.a>v -r ; tovtojv dvaycoyr) tcov 

dpidfiwv -f, m. 3 rov -f 1 . 4 rov rpia -E, B. 

5 7T€pLTTOv kcu npcoTov . . . re'Aetov ovra -omitted by r. 

a ?.£. 192 (not Crantor's 884). Plutarch contends in what 
follows that the use of 64 as multiplier, by which 102 is 
originally reached, is what made Crantor's procedure appear 
to be reasonable. In the procedure as given by Proclus 
(In Platonis Timaeum ii, p. 177, 3-26 [Diehl]) 64 is first 
taken (lines 3-4; cf. Theon Smyrnaeus, pp. 67, 21-68, 1 
[Hiller]) and is then multiplied by three to give 192 (line 8 ; 
cf. Plutarch infra and Theon Smyrnaeus, p. 68, 3-4 [Miller]), 
and finally 192 is doubled to give 384 (lines 22-26). 

& i.e. (54 == 43 = 8 2 . Cf. Philo Jud., Be Opificio Mundi 98 
and 106 (i, p. 32, 1-4* and p. 38, 2-6 [Cohn]) ; Anatolius, 
p. 35, 14-16 (Heiberg) = Iamblichus, Theolog. Ariih %% p. 54, 
13-15 (De Falco). For eight as the first cubic number see 
note a on page 281 supra. 

c See note e on page 279 supra. 



256 but of 384 to 512. Raising it to this number a is 
not unreasonable either but even for Grantor and his 
followers is the source of what is reasonable in their 
procedure, for 64 is both a cubic number from the 
first square number and a square number from the 
first cubic number b and, multiplied by three, which 
is the first odd c and first triangular number d and 
the first perfect e and first sesquialteran number/ 
makes 192, which itself has a sesquioctavan also, as 
we shall show. ° 

17. What the " leimma " is and what is Plato's 
meaning you will perceive more clearly, however, 
after having first been reminded briefly of the 
customary statements in the Pythagorean treatises. 
For an interval in music is all that is encompassed by 
two sounds dissimilar in pitch h ; and of the intervals 

d See note c on Plat. Quaest. 1003 f supra. 

e Cf. Quaest. Romanae 288 d, De hide 374 a, Fabius 
Maxhnus iv, 7 (176 d), and Quaest. Conviv. 738 v and 744 b 
for the different senses in which three and six is each the 
" first perfect number " ; cf. also Anatolius, p. 31, 7-9 
(Heiberg) = Iamblichus, Theolog. Arith., p. 17, 4-5 (De 
Falco) and for six see note con 1018 c supra. 

f Cf. Nicomachus, Arithmetica Introductio i, xix, 2-3 
(p. 49, 10-19 [Hoche]); Theon Smyrnaeus, p. 81, 1-2 
(Hiller) ; Macrobius, In Somnlum Scipionis i, vi, 43 (" primus 
hemiolius tria . . ."). 

See 1021 f infra. 

h This is not the same as the definition given in 1026 a 
supra (page 253, note a) and is not the " Pythagorean " de- 
finition but is that of Aristoxenus (Elementa Harmonica i, 15, 
25-32) and his followers, as Porphyry says (In Ptolemaei 
Harmonica, p. 91, 1-3 ; p. 93, 19-28 ; p. 125, 16-24 ; p. 128, 
5-6 [During]). Cf. Cleonides and Gaudentius in Musici 
Scriptores Graeci, p. 179, 11-12 and pp. 329, 23-330, 4 (Jan) ; 
and Aristides Quintilianus, De Musica i, 7 (p. 10, 18-19 



(1020) Xovfievos rovos> cS to 8id ttcvtz fiei^ov ion rod Sid 
Teaoapojv. tovtov ol jjl€v dpfioviKol St'^a re/xi/d- 
fievov olovrai 8vo Staar^/xara Troielv, (Lv eKarepov 

TjflLTOVLOV KaXoVOlV OL 8k UvOayopiKOL T7]V jJL€V €L$ 

taa Toprrjv arreyvojaav avrov tcju 8k Tfirjixdrcov av- 
F Locov 6vto)v Act/x/xa to eXarrov oVo/xa£ovoxv, ore rod 
rjfjLLaeos 1 d7ToXet7T€i. 8lo /cat tojv crt>/x</>amaV rrjv 
8ia reaadpojv ol fikv 8veiv tovojv /cat tjjxltovlov 
ttolovgiv ol 8k 8velv /cat Act/xitarosr. fiaprvpeXv 8k 
So/cet rots' /xev apjioviKols rj aio6r)ois rot? 8e p,adr)- 
IxariKols rj drroSet^LS, rjs tolovtos 6 rporros iariv 
1 TjiiLoccos -e, u, m 1 (corrected), Escor. 72 * (corrected). 

a This definition also is not " Pythagorean " but is that of 
Aristoxenus (Elementa Harmonica i, 21, 20-24 and ii, 46, 1-2), 
sharply criticized by Ptolemy (Harmonica, pp. 20, 13-21, 
20 [During] ; cf. Porphyry, In Ptolemaei Harmonica, p. 126, 
7-19 [Diiring]) ; cf. Bacchius and Gaudentius (Musici 
Scriptores Graeci, p. 293, 6-7 and p. 338, 11-12 [Jan]) and 
Theon Smyrnaeus, p. 53, 5-8 (Hiller). 

6 Aristoxenus, Elementa Harmonica ii, 46, 3 and 57, 
11-12; cf. Theon Smyrnaeus, p. 53, 8-10 (Hiller) and 
Boethius, De Institutione Musica in, i (p. 268, 21-25 [Fried- 
lein]). By ol dpfiovLKol here Plutarch means neither theorists 
earlier than Aristoxenus (Elementa Harmonica i, 2, 8-11 and 
ii, 40, 25-26) nor " dilettanti " (Maria Timpanaro Cardini, 
Pitagorici : Testimonianze e Frammenti, Fasc. ii [Firenze, 
1962], p. 213 note) but Aristoxenus and his followers, as is 
confirmed by ot pkv Suctv tovojv kg! jjixitovlov 7rotouatv infra. 

c See 1017 f supra (. . . tt)v els loa rod rovov Siavo/rqv 
aTToyiyvojoKovres) and cf. Porphyry, In Ptolemaei Harmonica, 
p. 67, 3-8 (During) ; Euclid, Sectio Canonis 16 ; Theon 
Smyrnaeus, p. 53, 13-15 (Hiller) ; Boethius, De Institutione 
Musica in, i and xi (pp. 269, 32-270, 1 and pp. 285, 9-286, 
4 [Friedlein] = Archytas, frag. A 19 [D.-K.]). 

d See 1018 e supra (page 285, note e). 

e Aristoxenus, Elementa Harmonica i, 24, 9-11 and ii, 
46, 2 and 56, 14-58, 5. Cf. Ptolemy, Harmonica, p. 21, 
21-22 and Theon Smyrnaeus, p. 67, 10-12 (Hiller). 


one is what is called the tone, that by which the fifth 
is greater than the fourths The harmonists think 
that this, when divided in two, makes two intervals, 
each of which they call a semitone 6 ; but the 
Pythagoreans denied that it is divisible into equal 
parts c and, as the segments are unequal, name the 
lesser of them " leimma " because it falls short of the 
half. d This is also why among the consonances the 
fourth is by the former made to consist of two tones 
and a semitone e and by the latter of two and a 
"leimma."* Sense-perception seems to testify in 
favour of the harmonists but in favour of the mathe- 
maticians g demonstration, 71 the manner of which is 

t Cf. Philolaus, frag. B 6 (i, p. 410, 3-8 [D.-K.] with 
note e on 1019 a supra) ; Ptolemy, Harmonica, pp. 22, 
17-23, 3 (During) ; Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum ii, p. 183, 
20-21 and 23-25 (Diehl). 

9 i.e. the Pythagoreans just mentioned ; see 1021 d infra 
(6p0a>s vno rdv fiadrjfxaTiKwv Xclfifia rrpo(rqy6p€VTaC) and note d 
on 1019 a supra. 

h Cf. Ptolemy, Harmonica, pp. 21, 25-22, 1 (During); 
and Theon Smyrnaeus, pp. 69, 17-70, 1 (Hiller), where ot 
fir} Xoyco dXXa rf\ aKofj Tavra Kpivovrcs is the conventional 
characterization of the Aristoxenians (cf. Proclus, In Platonis 
Timaeum ii, p. 170, 7-10 [Diehl] ; Boethius, De Institutione 
Musica ii, xxxi and in, i = p. 267, 4-5 and p. 268, 21-22 
[Friedlein]) in contrast to the Pythagoreans, who made 
reason, i.e. mathematical demonstration, the criterion of 
musical science (cf. [Plutarch], De Musica, 1144 f ; Aristides 
Quintilianus, De Musica iii, 2 = p. 97, 3-7 [Winnington- 
Ingram] ; Ptolemy, Harmonica, p. 6, 1-13 [During] ; 
Ptolemais of Cyrene in Porphyry, In Ptolemaei Harmonica, 
pp. 25, 9-26, 4 [Diiring]). For the attitude of Aristoxenus 
himself cf. his Elementa Harmonica ii, 32, 10-33, 2. Theo- 
phrastus spoke of rcov apfioviKtov kcli alaOrjaeL Kpivovriov in con- 
trast to those who made numerical ratio the criterion (Por- 
phyry, In Ptolemaei Harmonica, p. 62, 2-3 [During] = Theo- 
phrastus, frag. 89, 2 [Wimmer]). 



(1020) iXrj(f)9rj 8id tcop opydpcop OecoprjOep 1 ore to pXp olol 
Traacop top hcrrXdatop Xoyop ex €L T0 * ^€ 8id tt€pt€ top 
rjjJLioXiop to Se Sia Teoodpcop top IrriTpiTOP 6 8k 
1021 topos top eTToyhoop. escort 2 8e kcu pvp paoaploat 
TakqOks rf fidpr] 8v€lv dVicra x°p8o>P i^apTrjaapTas 
rj Svetp IookoLXcop avXtop top €T€pop fjLTjKei oWAa- 


ixel^ojp fiapvTepop (f>dey^€Tai 5 cos vvaTrj 77009 

PrjTTjP, 6 TCOP &€ X°p8o>P Tj TO) hiTTXaOLCO KaTCLT€LPO- 

jxepT] fidpei, 7 ttjs iTepas 6£vT€pop cos prtTt] Tjpbs 
V7t6rn)p. tovto 8' ioTi 8cd 7raacop. H 6[aolcos 8e 
koll Tpia Trpos 8vo Xrj(f)dePTa firjKrj kcu fidpr) to Sta 

7T€PT€ 7TOirjO€l KCll T€<JOCtpOL TTpOS Tpia TO 8iCL T€Ood~ 

rjuioXiop. idv Se cos iwda npos oktco yeprjTai, 9 tcop 

1 Xr]<j>0ev -r 3 (corrected in margin). 

2 tern -f, m, Escor. 72 ; ear at -r 1 (t superscript over at 

3 el -r. 4 rov -omitted by r. 

5 (frOeyycTai -B. 6 vrjrvv -omitted by r. 

7 pdpr} -e, u, Escor. 72 x (corrected). 

8 iarl <to> oia naawv -Hubert ; but cf. 1018 d supra 
(rrpos o€ to, %' oia 7raacov co? vtJttj irpos vTrdrrjv), 

9 E, B ; ytveTCLL -e, u, Escor. 72, Aldine ; yiv-qrai -f, m, r. 

a The following two experiments are ascribed to " various 
Pythagoreans " by Porphyry (In Ptolemaei Harmonica, 
pp. 119, 13-120, 7 [During]) and to Pythagoras himself by 
Censorinus (De Die Natali x, 8-12 = pp. 17, 19-19, 2 
[Hultsch]). Introduced by the story of the blacksmith's 
hammers, they are among those ascribed to Pythagoras by 
Nicomachus (Harmonices Man. 6= Musici Scriptores Graeci, 
pp. 246, 5-248, 26 [Jan]), whose account was copied by 
Iamblichus ( Vita Pyth. 115-119). Versions similar to this 
are given by Gaudentius (Musici Scriptores Graeci, pp. 340, 
4 — 341, 25 [Jan]), Macrobius (In Somnium Scipionis n, i, 
9-14), and Boethius (De Institutione Musica i, x-xi). The 



as follows. It has been found by observation with 
instruments that the octave has the duple ratio and 
the fifth the sesquialteran and the fourth the ses- 
quitertian and the tone the sesquioctavan. It is 
possible even now to test the truth of this a either by 
suspending unequal weights from two strings or by 
making one of two pipes with equal cavities double 
the length of the other, for of the two pipes the 
larger will sound lower as hypate to ncte and of the 
strings the one stretched by the double weight will 
sound higher than the other as nete to hypate. This 
is an octave. b Similarly too, when lengths and 
weights of three to two are taken, they will produce 
the fifth and of four to three the fourth, the latter of 
which has sesquitertian ratio and the former ses- 
quialteran. If the inequality of the weights or the 

longest account of such experiments but without the story 
of the hammers is given — in part from Adrastus — by Theon 
Smyrnaeus (pp. 57, 1-61, 11 ; pp. 65, 10-66, 11 ; p. 66, 
20-23 [Hiller]), whereas of them all Chalcidius (Platonis 
Timaeus, p. 112, 16-19 [Wrobel] = p. 94, 14-16 [Waszink]) 
mentions — and ascribes to Pythagoras — only that with the 
suspended weights (cf. Aristides Quintilianus, De Musica 
hi, l = pp. 94, 11-95, 7 [Winnington-Ingram]). The experi- 
ments were dismissed as " inexact " by Ptolemy (Harmonica, 
pp. 16, 32-17, 20 [During]) but without mention and pre- 
sumably without knowledge of the physical laws that make 
their professed results erroneous (cf. Burkert, Weisheit und 
Wis sense haft, pp. 354-357). 

5 The double weight would not produce an octave, for the 
frequency of vibration and hence the pitch varies with the 
square root of the weight stretching the string. For the 
opposite effect of increasing the length of the pipe and the 
weight suspended from the string cf. Nicomachus, Har- 
monices Man. 4 (Musici ScripCores Graeci, pp. 243, 10-244, 
9 [Jan]) and Censorinus, De Die Natali x, 12 (pp. 18, 24- 
19, 2 [Ilultsch]). 



(1021) Q „ M . . e > / , & y 

-o papOJV 7) TCDV fl7]KOJV 7] aVlO0T7]S , 7TOl7JG€l OiaGTTjfAa 


jSpa^v, to) 1 rov9 <f>66yyovs, av d^d fiepos Kpov- 
o8tboc, 7rape\eiv t)8v cfxjovovvras kcu TTpoorjves, av 
8e 6p,ov, rpaxv 2 Kal XvTTiqpov iv 8e rat? ovfJL<f>a)~ 
viais, kSlv ofiov Kpovajvrai kov ivaXXd£, rjSetos irpoo- 
Urcu ty)v ovvr\yr\oiv* r) aiadrjois. ov pjr)v aAAa 
/cat 4 Std Xoyov rovro 8eiKvvovoiv . iv fiev yap dp- 
fjiovta to Std rraowv €/c re tov Std rrevTe ovyKeirai 
Kal tov Std Teaodpojv, iv S' dpiOpioZs to 8nr\aoiov 
€K T€ tov rjfjuoAtov Kal tov eTTiTpLTOV To, ydp tj8' 

TtOV jJL€V Q' €OTLV eiTLTplTa TCtJV S' 7] TjfJLloXia TCOV 

C Se s' / SiTrXdaia. ovvOeTos ovv 6 tov St7rAacrtou 5 
Xoyos iarlv Ik tov tjjjUoXlov Kal tov imTpiTov 
Kaddrrep 6 tov Std irao&v €/c 6 tov Std rrevTe /cat 
tov Std Teaodpojv, dAAd /cd/cet to Std rrevTe tov 
Std Teaadpojv tovoj Kavravda to tjjjlioXiov tov em- 

TpLTOV Tip €7TOy8otp /X£t£oV iaTl. (f>aLV€Tat TOLVVV 

OTi to Std 7Taaa>v tov St7rAdatov Xoyov eyei /cat to 

Std 7T€VT€ TOV TjfJLLoXlOV Kal TO Std TeoodpOJV TOV 
€7TlTpiTOV Kal 6 TOVOS TOV €Tr6y8oOV. 

18. i Arro8e8€cyiJi€VOV Se tovtov, OK07ru)p,€v el 

St^a Tepuveodai 7re<f>VKe to irroySoov 7 - el yap p,7) 

1 to -e, u, r, Escor. 72, Aldine. 

2 7raxt) -f» m, r, Aldine. 

3 avvrj9et.av -B ; ovyyvaiv -r. 

4 /cai -omitted by u. 

5 SiTrAao-iov -u. 

6 €tV -e, u, Escor. 72 1 (corrected in margin)." 

7 a77o8€Sety^teVou . . . to inoyboov -omitted by f. 

° C/. Nicomachus, Harmonices Man. 6 (Musicl Scriptores 
Graeci, p. 246, 11-14 [Jan]) ; Ptolemy, Harmonica, p. 15, 10- 
17 and p. 16, 14-16 and 25-28 (During) ; Theon Smyrnaeus, 
p. 49, 4-5 and p. 75, 15-17 (Hiller). 



lengths be made as nine to eight, however, it will 
produce an interval, that of the tone, not concordant 
but tuneful because, to put it briefly, the notes it 
gives, if they are struck successively, sound sweet and 
agreeable but, if struck together, harsh and painful, 
whereas in the case of consonances, whether they be 
struck together or alternately, the sense accepts with 
pleasure the combination of sounds What is more, 
they give a rational demonstration of this too. c The 
reason is that in a musical scale the octave is com- 
posed of the fifth and the fourth and arithmetically 
the duple is composed of the sesquialter and the 
sesquiterce, for twelve is four thirds of nine and half 
again as much as eight and twice as much as six. 
Therefore the ratio of the duple is composite of the 
sesquialter and the sesquiterce just as that of the 
octave is of the fifth and the fourth, but in that case 
the fifth is greater than the fourth by a tone and in 
this the sesquialter greater than the sesquiterce by a 
sesquioctave. d It is apparent, then, that the octave 
has the duple ratio and the fifth the sesquialter an and 
the fourth the sesquitertian and the tone the ses- 

18. Now that this has been demonstrated, let us 
see whether the sesquioctave is susceptible of being 

6 Cf. Adrastus in Theon Smyrnaeus, pp. 50, 22-51, 4 
(Hiller) and Porphyry, In Ptolernaei Harmonica, p. 96, 1-6 
(During) ; Nicomachus, Harmonices Man. 12 (Musici Scrip- 
tores Graeci, p. 262, 1-5 [Jan]). 

c Cf. Adrastus in Theon Smyrnaeus, p. 61, 20-23 and 
with the following demonstration Theon Smyrnaeus, pp. 62, 
1-63, 2 (Hiller); Chalcidius, Platonis Timaeus.p. 113, 1-20 
(Wrobel) = p. 95, 1-15 (Waszink) ; Ptolemy, Harmonica, 
pp. 11, 24-12, 1 (During). 

* Cf. Euclid, Sectio Canonis 13. 



(1021) 7T€(f)VK€v, ov8e 6 rovos- eVetS*^ 1 7rparrot 2 tov inoy- 

D Soov Xoyov 6 6' /cat o rf ttoiovvtzs oi)8kv SiacrnjjLta 

fieaov e^ovai StTrXaataadevrcov 8' dp,(/)OT€pojv 6 

TTapefXTTLTrrcov /x€Ta|u 8vo ttol€l StaorT^aTa, 8fj\ov 


8oov. aAAa /xt]v St77Aacria yt'yi>6Tat toj^ /zei> 6' 
ra it) tqjv S' r\ rot, i$' y hi^ovrai 8e ovtol fjiera^v 
tol t£' /cat ytyyerat ra>v SiaaTrjjidrcjov to fxev /xct£ov 
to 8' eAcLTTov eort yap to /xev rrporzpov i(f)€7TTa- 
KaiSeKaTov to 8e SevTepov €<£e£/catO€/caToy. etV 
avioa tolwv Te/xferat to irroySoov el 8e tovto, /cat 
o tovos. ovSeTepov dpa yiyveTai StqipeOevTos 


E tu>v pLadrjixaTtKcbv Aet/i/ta 3 TrpoarjyopevTCU . /cat 

TOL>T eOTlV 6 (f>7]GLV 6 WXaTOJV TOL ZTTlTpiTO?' Tol$ 

irroySoois ov jjLTrXrjpo vvtcl tov deov Xeiireiv e/caaTou 
jxopiov avTcov, ov Adyo? IcttIv ov e^et to, $' /cat v 
/cat o' TTpos Ta y /cat p! /cat a'. elXrj^doj yap to 
8ia T€crudpojv iv dpi8p,ols 8ual tov irriTpiTOv Adyov 

1 cVei §€ -Stephanus. 

2 trpwTov -r, Aldine. 

3 AcifxfjLa <to €\aTTov> -Maurom mates. 
4 f, in, r ; ra rpira -E, B, e, u, Escor. 72, Aldine. 

With the following demonstration cf. Anon, iji Platonis 
Theaetetum (Pap. Berl. 9782), cols. 34, 47-35, 12 (p. 23 
[Diels-Schubart]) ; Aristides Quintilianus, De Musica iii, 1 
(pp. 95, 19-96, 4 [Winnington-Ingram]) ; Boethius, De 
Institutions Musica in, i (p. 270, 4-18 [Friedlein]) ; and 
Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum ii, p. 179, 18-25 (Diehl). 

b This is inconsistent with the statement that between 
nine and eight there is no interval. The authors cited in the 
last preceding note speak of numbers and ratios rather than 
intervals, whereas Theon Smymaeus (p. 70, 1-3 and 15-16 
[Miller)) asserts that the sesquioctave is indivisible because 
the interval of nine to eight, i.e. the unit, is indivisible. 



divided in half, for, if it is not, neither is the tone. 
Since nine and eight, the first numbers producing the 
sesquioctavan ratio, have no intermediate interval 
but between them when both are doubled the inter- 
vening number produces two intervals, b it is clear 
that, if these intervals are equal, the sesquioctave is 
divided in half. But now twice nine is eighteen and 
twice eight sixteen ; and between them these 
numbers contain seventeen, and one of the intervals 
turns out to be larger and the other smaller, for the 
former is eighteen seventeenths and the second is 
seventeen sixteenths. It is into unequal parts, then, 
that the sesquioctave is divided ; and, if this is, the 
tone is also. Neither of its segments, therefore, 
when it is divided, turns out to be a semitone ; but 
it c has rightly been called by the mathematicians 
" leimma." d This is just what Plato says e god in 
filling in the sesquiterces with the sesquioctaves 
leaves a fraction of each of them, the ratio of which 
is 256 to 243. For / let the fourth be taken as ex- 
pressed by two numbers comprising the sesquitertian 

c i.e. what is commonly called the semitone, for Aeycrat 
kolvcos ucv miiTovLov IBlws $€ XcTuua (Gaudentius in Music I 
Scriptores Graeci, p. 342, 7-11 [Jan] ; cf. ibid., p. 344, 5-6 
and Theon Smyrnaeus, p. 53, 8-13 [Miller] with Porphyry, 
In Ptolemaei Harmonica, p. 67, 5-8 [During]). 

d See supra 1020 e-f and 1019 a, notes d and e. 

e This sentence is a paraphrase of Timaeus 36 b 1-5, 
quoted supra 1027 c and 1020 b. 

1 With what follows in the rest of this chapter cf. especially 
Nicomachus, Excerpta 2 (Musici Scriptores Graeci, pp. 267, 
2-268, 2 [Jan]). Cf. also Chalcidius, Platonis Timaeus, 
pp. 117, 1-11 and 118, 4-16 (Wrobel) = pp. 98, 11-99, 1 and 
99, 10-19 (Waszink) ; Boethius, Be Institutione Musica 
in, ii (pp. 272, 11-273, 14 [Friedlein]) ; and most succinctly 
Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum ii, p. 177, 8-13 (Diehl). 



(1021) 7T€pi€XOVGL, TOLS OVg' KOLL Tote P^fi' > 0)V 6 jl€V 

iXdrrcov, rd p^fi' , Keiodco Kara rov fiapvrarov 1 
rod rerpaxopoov (j)66yyov 2 6 oe jiel^wv, rd avf', 
Kara rov 6£vrarov. dirooeiKreov ore, rovrov <jv\l- 
7rXr)povfi€Vov 8valv erroySoots, Xeirrerai oidorr)pa 
rrjXiKovrov tjXlkov tvs ev dpidpols rd st' koI v koX 
a' rrpos rd y Kai p! kqX g' ' . 3 rod yap fiapvrepov 
F rovov 4, emraOevros, 6 on ep eorlv enoyooov, ylyver ai 
ens''. 6 rovrov rrdXcv rovov dXXov 7 eniradevros, yiy- 
verai opy '. radra p.ev yap V7repex €i rcov ens'' rots' 
kl, ra be oig ra>v pvp rots ko , cov ra p,ev kL, 
rcov ens'' oyood 9 ion rd oe kS' rcov p9]8'. hid 
ylyverat rcov rpicov rovrcov dpidpicov o re pieyiaros 
€7royooos rod pieaov Kai 6 p,eoos rod eXa)(icrrov ro 
a770 rov eAayiorov oiaorrjpa p-expi< rov peyi- 
orov, rovreari rd and rcov p9jS' p<exP l rcov opjy' , n 
1022 oirovov 12 €K Svelv ovprrXrjpovpevov 13 enoyoocov. dtf>- 
aipovp,evov 8e rovrov, rrepieori rod oXov Sta- 
arrjpa Xolttov rd pera^v rwv op,y koX rcov ov$' , rd 
ly '• Sio \<aX Aet/x/xa rovrov rov apidp,6v cov6pia£,ov. 

1 rov fiapvTdTov -f ; to v -m, r ; rov fiapvrepov -E, 
B, e, u ; rov papvrovov -Escor. 72, Aldine. 

2 <f>66yyov -u. 

3 7rpos to y koX jx kol a -f, m, r (ex*** trpos ... or' -Turne- 
bus) ; omitted by E, B, e, u, Escor. 72, Aldine. 

4 rovov -Benseler (De Hiatu, p. 528) ; rovcp -mss. 

5 iiridivros -f. 

6 at?' -E, B, e, Escor. 72 ; oifi' -u ; t<x oV -f, m, r. 

7 E, B, e, Escor. 72 ; toVoj aAAoy -f, m, r ; rovov aAAco? -it, 

8 E, B, f, m, r ; ra Bk is' -e, Escor. 72, Aldine ; ra Se ij8' 

9 Xylander ; eVdySoa -mss. 
10 to 8c iXaxiorov rd -U. 



ratio, 256 and 192 ; and of these let the smaller, 192, 
be placed at the lowest note of the tetrachord and 
the larger, 256, at the highest. It is to be proved 
that, when this is filled in with two sesquioctaves, 
there is left an interval of the size that numerically 
expressed is 256 to 243. This is so, for, when the 
lower note has been raised a tone, which is a ses- 
quioctave, it amounts to 216 ; and, when this has 
been raised again another tone, it amounts to 243, 
for the latter exceeds 216 by 27 and 216 exceeds 192 
by 24, and of these 27 is an eighth of 216 and 24 an 
eighth of 192. Consequently, of these three numbers 
the largest turns out to be sesquioctavan of the 
intermediate and the intermediate sesquioctavan of 
the smallest ; and the interval from the smallest to 
the largest, i.e. that from 192 to 243, amounts to an 
interval of two tones filled in with two sesquioctaves. 
When this is subtracted, however, there remains of 
the whole as an interval left over what is between 
243 and 256, that is thirteen ; and this is the very 
reason why they named this number " leimma." b 

a For the assignment of the larger numbers to the higher 
notes see 1018 d supra with note c there, and especially 
[Plutarch], De Musica 1138 e-f, 1139 c, 1140 a and Nico- 
machus, Harmonices Man. 6 and Excerpta 7 (Musici 
Scriptores Graeci, p. 248, 18-23 and p. 279, 12-14 [Jan]). 
For advocacy of the opposite procedure cf. Adrastus in 
Theon Smyrnaeus, pp. 65, 10-66, 11 (Hiller). On the two 
procedures cf Burkert, Weisheit und Wissenschaft, p. 359, 
n. 54. 

6 See 1018 k supra with notes d and e there. 

11 TouTeori . . . f*€xp<> ruiv apy' -deleted as a scholium by 
Papabasileios {Athena, x [1898], p. 226). 
18 btdrovov -r. 
18 Maurommates ; <wfm\r)podfjL€v -mss. 



(1022) iyw [JLZv ovv evorjiMorara SrjXovadai ttju UXoltcovos 
otfxac yv(j[)fJLr]v €v rovrocs rots aptdpLols. 

19. "Erepoi Se toO 1 Std reaadpajv opovs Oe^voi 
rov [lev o$vv ev \rois) 0-7707 rov be papvv ev rots 
oig' dvaXoycos tJStj* tovs* e£rjs Trepaivovaiv, 7rXrjv 
on to XelpupLa rcov Svelv rovcov h fxera^v Xap,fidvovoi. 
rov yap fiapvrepov rovov* emraOevros yiyverat 
o\iy ', rov S' o^vrepov rovov 1 dveOevros* yiyverai 
avg' - eon ydp emoyhoa rd fiev o\iy rcov oig' ra 8e 
B anr\ rcov avg' coore rovialov elvai rcov Siaarrj- 
fidrcov etxarepov Xeijreodai 8e to 9 fxera^v rcov 
crfiy' Kal rcov crvg' , orrep ovk eanv rfficrovcov dAA' 
eXarrov rd [xev yap airr\ rcov ovg' vrrepex^ rols 

\ Of x 2 x t ** -,f< i 10 ~ ^ < o\ 

Ap ra be afxy rcov aig vrrepe^t rots kl, ra be 
ov$' rcov o\xy virepcyei tqls iy f • ravra 8* dfufro- 
repcov 11 rcov vrrepoxcov eXdrrco 12 fj rjixiaed ion. Sid 
hvelv rovcov Kal XelfjLfjLaros, ov hvelv teal rj/JLiaeog, 
evprjrai to Std reaodpeov. /cat ravra pbev k'xei roi- 
avrrjv arroSei^iv . itxelvo S' ov rrdw xaXenov etc 

1 rov -Maurommates (p. 42 in note ad p. 29, 20), B. Muller 
(1873) ; rovs -mss. 2 <rols> -added by Stephanus. 

3 rjh-q -E, B, e, u, Escor. 72 ; roiwv -f, m, r, Aldine. 

4 tovs -H. C. (scil. opovs) ; rots -mss. ; to, -B. Muller 
(1873), cf. " reliqua " in the versions of Turnebus and 

5 Maurommates after the version of Xylander ; to 
Xelfj,fjLa rdv hvoiv tcjv -Stephanus ; rcov XeLfXf.La.TOJv Su€tv (or 
BvoTv) rwv -mss. (with cross in margin -E ; to ...?... in 
margin -e) ; to Xu^a hvolv rovoiv -f 1 , and m 1 in margin ; 
to Actju/xa hvolv -r l in margin. 

6 rovov -Benseler {Be Hiatu* p. 52S) ; tovco -mss. 

7 tovov -e, u, f, m, Escor. 72, Aldine ; tovoi; -r (with 
three dots above ov) ; tovoj -E, B. 

8 Stephanus ; dvaraOevTos -E (to? superscript over 8ev 
erased and replaced by tos on the line), B, u (ava over 



So I, for my part, think that Plato's intention is most 
clearly explained by these numbers. 

19. As terms of the fourth, however, others 6 put 
the high note at 288 and the low at 216 and then 
determine proportionally those that come next, except 
that they take the " leimma " to be between the two 
tones. For, when the lower note has been raised a 
tone, the result is 243 and, when the higher has been 
lowered a tone, it is 256, for 213 is nine eighths of 216 
and 288 nine eighths of 256, so that each of the two 
intervals is that of a tone and there is left what is 
between 243 and 256 ; and this is not a semitone but 
is less, for 288 exceeds 256 by 32 and 243 exceeds 216 
by 27 but 256 exceeds 243 by thirteen, which is less 
than half of both the excesses 32 and 27. c Con- 
sequently it turns out that the fourth consists of two 
tones and a " leimma,' ' not of two tones and a half. 
Such, then, is the demonstration of this point. As 
to the following point, from what has been said 

° See 1020 c-d supra with note /on page 301. 

6 The alternative procedure described in the following 
lines is given by Nicomachus, Excerpta 2 (Musicl Scriptores 
Graeci, pp. 269, 8-270, 6 [Jan]). 

e This is not proof that the leimma is less than half of the 
tone, but the same mistake of substituting for the ratios 
the differences between their terms is committed by Nico- 
machus in Excerpta 2 (Musici Scriptores Graeci, p. 270, 4-6 
and 6-12 [Jan] ; cf. also ibid., pp. 267, 15-268, 2). 

erasure), f, m, Escor. 72 ; dvadevros -e 1 (tcl superscript 
between a and 9 -e 2 ) ; dvaredcvros -r. 

9 Maurommates ; to -E ; to»v -B, u ; tov -all other mss., 

10 rot? AjS' . . . to>v ens' 7 vTrcpex^L -omitted by f, m, r. 

11 Turnebus ; a/^drcoa -e, u, f, m, r, Escor. 72, Aldine ; 
dfi<f>6r€pa after imepoxtov -E, B. 

12 cAcittcov -f, r (with three dots above gj). 



(1022) rcov 7rpo€ipr]iA€va)v ovviheiv, 1 ri 8r]7rore <f>rjoas 6 
YiXarcov rjfjLLoAiovs /cat emrpirovs /cat €7roy86ovs 
C yiyveodat Siaardoeis Iv rep av pLTrXrjpovGd ai rds 
emrpirovs 2 rats €7roy86ois ovk ipLvrjodrj rtov r)p,i- 
oXlojv dXXd irapeXirre. to yap rjpioXiov rod 
ernrpirov rep €7roy86cp (pLeZ^ov eon, ojotc tov 

€7TOy86ovy Tip €7TlTpLTCp TrpO(JTl0€pL€VOU* OVpL7rXrj- 

povaOai teal to rjpLtoXiov. 

20. t Yrro8e8eiypievojv 8e tovtojv, to puev ou/x- 
7rXrjpovv tol 8iaoT7]piara /cat Trapevrdrreiv rds 
pLeoorrjras, el /cat pL7]8els irvyyave 7T€7TOLrj kojs tt po- 
re pov, ujittv 6 dv avrols eW/ca 6 yvpwaolas TraprJKa* 
vvv 8k ttoXXois KayadoZs av8pdow e^eipyao p,evov 
rovrov /zaAiora 8e Kpdvropi /cat KXedpyto /cat 
Qeo8wp(p Tots 7 ZoXevoi, piiKpd rrepl rrjs rovrcov 
8ia<f)opas elireZv ovk dxpr\orov euriv, 6 yap @eo- 
D 8a>pos, ovx cos eKeZvoi 8vo orCx ov s 8 ttolwv aAA' errl 
pads evOeias ecf)e£fjs rovs re SnrXaoLovs eKrdrrcov 
/cat tov? rpnrXaoiovs > rrpcorov pcev loxvpi^erac rfj 

1 ovveio&v -u, f, m 1 . 

3 ras Staardacis -r« 

8 <. . .> -added by Leonicus ; ra> inoyoow tw -E, e, u, f, 
m, r, Escor. 72 ; tw €7roySoa> kox to* -B. 

4 TTpoariOcfjicvio -f, m, r. 

6 E, B ; rjjjuv -all other mss., Aldine. 


7 rots -omitted by f. 

8 otolxovs -f» m, r (c/. 1027 d supra [chap. 29 ad finem] : 
iv oval orixois). 

° i.e. in Tirnaeus 36 a 6-b 1 (see 1020 b supra) y where in 
B 1 Plato says rq> tov etroySoov SiaaTrjfjiaTL tol eirLrpiTa. navra 
ovvenX^povTo. In paraphrasing this Nicomachus explicitly 
included the i^ioAta (Harmonices Man. 8= Musici Scriptores 
Graeci, p. 250, 10-11 [Jan]), and the filling in of the 17/xtdAia 
also was taken for granted by Proclus (In Platonis Timaeum 



before it is not very difficult either to see why, after 
Plato had said that there came to be intervals of 
three to two and of four to three and of nine to eight, 
when saying that those of four to three are filled in 
with those of nine to eight he did not mention those 
of three to two but omitted them. a The reason is 
that the sesquialter (is greater than) the sesquiterce 
by the sesquioctave (so that with the sesquioctave's) 
addition to the sesquiterce the sesquialter is filled in 
as well. 6 

20. After the exposition of these matters the task 
of filling in the intervals and inserting the means c I 
should still have left to you for an exercise to do your- 
selves though no one at all had happened to have 
done it before ; but now that this has been worked 
out by many excellent men and especially by Crantor 
and Clearchus and Theodorus, all of Soli, d it is not 
unprofitable to say a few words about the way in 
which they disagree. For Theodorus unlike those 
others does not make two rows but sets out the 
double and the triple numbers one after another in a 
single straight line, e relying for this in the first place 

ii, p. 170, 25-26 and p. 175, 3-5 with p. 179, 3-6 and p. 185, 
5-6 and 13-16 [Diehl]) ; c/. B. Kytzler, Hermes, lxxxvii 
(1959), pp. 401-402. 

b Cf. Chalcidius, Platonis Timaeus, p. 115, 11-15 (Wrobel) 
= p. 97, 7-10 (Waszink). 

c See 1020 a supra with note b there. 

d Crantor, frag. 6 (Kayser) = frag. 6 (Mullach, Frag. 
Philos. Graec. iii, pp. 143-145) and Clearchus, frag. 4 
(Wehrli) ; see 1027 d supra (chap. 29 sub finem) with notes 
d and e there. 

• So later Severus, Porphyry, and Proclus himself 
(Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum ii, p. 171, 4-9 ; p. 175, 17- 
21 ; and p. 192, 24-27 [Diehl]), who does not mention the 
priority of Theodorus of Soli. 



(1022) Xeyofxevr] Kara pbrJKOs axioei 1 rrjs ovcrlas hvo ttol- 
ovorf jJLOtpas cog €K (Mas, ov reaaapas €K hvelv, 


Aapifidveiv TrpoarjKew* x^P av ' € ^ °^ PI* Ta<paxV v 
kolI crvyxvoiv eaeadac Kal fieraardaeig el$ A to rrpcb- 
rov evdvs rpnrXaoiov e/c rod rrpajrov oirrXaaiov rcov 
avfiTrX-qpovv 5 eKarepov 6<f>eiX6vTan> . rols Se irepl 
top Kpdvropa j3orj6ovatv at re Oeoeis rcov apidfjLtov, 
€ r i7i7riocx)V eTwreSoLS Kal rerpaywvojv tct pay covets 
E Kal Kvfiajv Kvfiois dvriderajs ov&yovvTajv, rfj re 
jjiT] Kara rd^tv avrwv XrjdteL dXX* ivaXXdt; dpriuyv 
1027 F /cat 6 (30 b.) TrepiTTcov 7 (airros o riAdVojv). 8 rrjv yap 

1 axtaet -m (t over original e), Turnebus ; cxe'crsi -all other 
mss., Aldine. 

2 ttoiovoi -ii ; TTonjarj -Aldine. 

3 f, in, r ; 7rpoorJK€i -E, B, e, U, Escor. 72. 

4 Emperius (Op. Philol., p. 340), cf. " traiectiones " 
-Xylander ; pcraords els -mss. 

5 E, B ; (jv/jl7tXt]povvtwv -all other mss., Aldine. 

6 dprlcov Kal 7r . . . vac. 4-1/2 lines -E ; vac. 2-1/2 lines 
-B . . . Kara ra avra (1022 E supra [chap. 21 init.]) -E, B ; 
apTicov Kal im . . . vac. 14 -f ; vac. 13 -m, r . . . Kara rd avra 

-f, m, r ; dpriojv koX inl Kara (Kara -Escor. 72 ; ivlKard -u) 
ra aura -e, u, Escor. 72; see 1022 e supra (chap. 21 init.), 
apparatus criticus, note 2 on page 212. 

7 See 1017 c supra (chap. 30, page 268), apparatus criticus, 
note 9 : bevrepa TTCpirrtov -E, B ; oevrepa (oevrepa Sc -f ) 
rcov irtpiTTLov -f, m, r, Aldine; btvrepirrtov -e, u, Escor. 72 
(partvvne -Escor. 72 in margin with three dots after Scut*). 

8 Kavros 6 YlXdrcov> -added by Pohlenz ; <HXdrojv> -B. 
Mttller (Hermes, iv [1870], pp. 399-408 and v T1871], p. 

a Timaeus 36 u 6-7 (ravrrjv ovv rr\v ovoramv iraoav oittXtjv 
Kara [xtjkos a\^as . . .) ; cf. Proclus (In Platonis Timaeum 
ii, p. 237, 15-27 [Diehl] and In Platonis Pern Publicam ii, 



upon what is stated to be the cleavage of the sub- 
stance lengthwise that makes two parts presumably 
out of one, a not four out of two, and in the second 
place saying that it is suitable for the insertions of 
the means to be arranged in this sequence, as other- 
wise there will be disorder and confusion and trans- 
positions to the very first triple from the first double 
of the terms that ought to fill in each of the two. 6 
Crantor and his followers, however, are supported 
by the position of the numbers, paired off with plane 
numbers over against plane and square over against 
square and cubic over against cubic numbers , d and 
in their being taken not in order but alternately even 
and (30 b.) odd by <Plato himself)/ For after 

p. 143, 20-21 [Kroll]), who also takes this to show that the 
numbers were meant to be arranged in a single row. 

b The harmonic and arithmetical means of the first triple 
(f and 2) are already given by the first double and its means 
(I* s, f, 2) ; cf. the objection to the lambda of Adrastus 
made by Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum ii, pp. 187, 28-188, 
1 and p. 192, 27-29 (Diehl). 

c Among them Clearchus, who was mentioned with 
Crantor just above, and Plutarch himself. The arrange- 
ment in the form of a lambda is assumed later by Theon 
Smyrnaeus (pp. 94, 11-96, 5 [Hiller]) and Macrobius (In 
Somnium Scipionis i, vi, 46) ; of those w T ho adopted it 
earlier Proclus names only Adrastus, who elaborated a triple 
form of it (Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum ii, pp. 170, 26- 
171, 4 ; p. 187, 17-26 ; and p. 192, 24-26 [Diehl]), which is 
represented by the three successive diagrams of Chalcidius 
(Platonis Timaeus, pp. 98, 13-118, 3 [Wrobel] = pp. 82, 20- 
99, 9 [Waszink]). 

d See 1017 b-e supra (chap. 11), pages 271, note d-273, 
note a. 

' In Timaeus 35 b 4-c 2 the order is 2, 3, 4, 9, 8, 27, i.e. 
alternately even and odd (cf. Macrobius, In Somnium 
Scipionis n, ii, 17), whereas the natural order (. . . 4, 8, 9, 27) 
would be . . . even, even, odd, odd. 



(1027) fjiovdSa kolvtjv ovoav dp<f>olv rrpord^as Aa/x/Javei 
tol 7)' kolI i<f>et;rjs rd /<:£' ', povovovx} 1 SetKVVcov rjptv 
1028 fjv iKarepcQ yevei x^P av o\ttoSlSojol. ravra pkv 
ovv irepois 7rpoarjK€i p&XAov e^aKpifiovv, to 8' 
aTToAeuTo/jievov oiKtlov ion rrjs VTTOK€ipivr)$ rjjjuv 
r 31. Ov yap eTTihei^iv 6 HAdrcov dewpias paOrj- 

fJLOLTtKfjS TTOlOV\±€VOS €1$ <f>VGlKr]V VTTodtGW fXTj StO- 

pevrjv jjL€oorr]Tas dpidprjnKds kcu dppoviKas rrap- 
eiorjyayev dXXd ws pdXiora S17 rfj ovordoet rfjs 


rives pev ev rols rdx^oi ra>v TrXavwpevcjv o<f>ai- 
pcov rives 8e pdXXov ev rots diroorripaoiv evioi 8' iv 
rois peyedeoi rcov dorepwv ol S' dyav aKpifiovv So- 
B Kovvres ev rals rojv €7TikvkXol>v Siaperpois fyrovoi 
rds elpr^pevas dvaXoyias, ojs rrjv iftvypiv eveKa rov- 
tojv rov Srjpiovpyov rols ovpaviois ivappooavros* 

1 E, B ; jiovovovxl ovv -all other mss., Aldine. 
2 tov Xoyov tov -u. 3 ovpavols €vapp,u)cravT€S -U. 

a See 1027 e supra with note a on page 269. 

b Plutarch may have in mind here not only the order 
9, 8, 27 to which he has just referred but also the omission 
of 16, the next power of two between 8 and 27 (cf. B. Kytzler, 
Hermes, lxxxvii [1959], pp. 404-405). 

c See 1017 e supra (chap. 11) with note/ on page 271. 

d With all that follows in this sentence cf. Proclus, In 
Platonis Timaeum ii, pp. 212, 12-213, 7 (Diehl). 

■ Plato in Timaeus 36 d 5-7 says that of the seven circles 
three move ra^ci . . . o/xoioj? and four dAAiJAoi? /cat rot? TpLolv 
dvofioltos ev \6yco hi and in Timaeus 39 d 4-5 speaks of 
anaowv tojv oktco 7T€pioha)V to. irpos aX\r)Aa . . . TO-xr] (cf P#~ 
public 617 a 7-b 3). For the introduction of " spheres " 
into the astronomy of the Timaeus see supra Plat. Quaest. 
1007 a with note d there. 

' Cf. Chalcidius, Platonis Timaeus, p. 167, 8-17 (Wrobel) 



putting at the head the unit, which is common to 
both, he takes eight and next thereafter twenty- 
seven, b all but showing us c the position that he assigns 
to each of the two kinds. Now, to treat this with 
greater precision is a task that belongs to others ; 
but what remains is a proper part of our present 

31. It is so because Plato did not as a display of 
mathematical learning drag arithmetical and har- 
monic means into a discourse on natural philosophy 
where they are not wanted but introduced them on 
the assumption that this calculation is especially 
appropriate to the composition of the soul. Yet 
certain people d look for the prescribed proportions 
in the velocities of the planetary spheres, 6 certain 
others rather in their distances/ some in the magni- 
tudes of the stars/ and those with a reputation for 
exceedingly exact investigation in the diameters of 
the epicycles, 71 assuming these to be the ends for 
which the artificer fitted to the heavenly bodies the 

= p. 148, 12-19 (Waszink); Macrobius, In Somnium Sci- 
pionis ii, iii, 14-15 ( = Porphyrii in Platonis Timaeum . . . 
Fragments p. 63, 5-21 [Sodano]) ; Hippolytus, Refutatio 
iv, 10, 1-11,5 (pp. 42, 17-44, 22 [Wendland]). These are all 
attempts to interpret Timaeus 36 d 2-4, for which cf. Proclus, 
In Platonis Timaeum ii, p. 265, 8-29 (Diehl). 

Perhaps by interpretation of Republic 616 e 3-8 : cf 
Proclus, In Platonis Rem Publicam ii, p. 218, 2-28 ; p. 219, 
23-29 ; and pp. 221, 28-222, 2 (Kroll) with Theon Smyrnaeus, 
p. 143, 14-18 (Hiller) and Taylor, Commentary on Plato's 
Timaeus, p. 161, n. 2. 

* Against the attempt to introduce epicycles into Plato's 
astronomy (e.g. Theon Smyrnaeus, pp. 188, 25-189, 6 
[Hiller] ; Chalcidius, Platonis Timaeus, p. 176, 6-13 [Wrobel] 
= p. 156, 19-24 [Waszink]) cf. Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum 
ii, p. 264, 19-25 and iii, p. 96, 13-32 and p. 146, 14-28 (Diehl). 



(1028) etV cVrd fioipas vevepLrjiJLdvqv. 7roXXol 8e /cat rd 
TlvOayopiKci 8evpo pierage povow, oltto rod fiecrov 
ras rcov acjDfjLOLTCjJV diroordoets 1 rpirrXaoidl^ovres. 
ytyverai 8e rovro Kara fiev to nvp fjiovd&os rede- 
fievTjs /card S' dvrcxOova rpitov Kara 8e yr\v ewea 
/cat /card oeArjvrjv elKooieTrra /cat /card rov 'Ep^tou 2 
jjli&s /cat oySorjKovra /card 8e Ocua^dpov rpidv /cat 
/z' /cat cj /car aurov Se rov rjAtov d' /cat /c' /cat i/*', 
6V ye 3 djtta rerpdycovos re /cat Kvfios earl- 810 /cat 
7W 17A10V ecrTtv oVe T€Tpdyojvov /cat Kvfiov rrpocr- 
C ayopevovcriv. ovtojs 8e /cat rot)? dAAous irravdyovoL 

1 a7rooraCT€t -B. 

2 ep/xijv -m, r, Escor. 72 eorr - (771/ superscript over ov), 

8 os y -Hubert ; on -E, B, e, u, Aldine ; ore -f\ m, r, 
Escor. 72 ; ootls -Stephanus (" qui numerus " -Turnebus). 

Cf Plutarch, Nxirna xi, 1-2 (67 d) : ... rod ovfnravTos 
Koofiov, ov \iiaov oi UvdayopiKoi to nvp thpOodat vo/zi£ouox /cat 
tov0* '^orlav kglXovol koL fjiovdha. . . . 

6 Central fire and counter-earth identify this as the 
Pythagorean system referred to by Aristotle (Be Caelo 293 
a 20-27 and Metaphysics 9S6 a 10-13) and elsewhere ascribed 
to Philolaus (frags. A 16 and 17 [D.-K.D ; but in that 
system the orbit of the sun was located immediately above 
that of the moon (Philolaus, frag. A 16 [D.-K.] ; Alexander, 
Metaph., pp. 38, 20-39, 3 and p. 40, 3-6) as it was by Plato 
and Aristotle too (cf. Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum iii, 
pp. 60, 31-61, 2 and p. 62, 3-6 [Diehl] and In Platonis Rem 
Publicam ii, p. 220, 1-21 [Kroll]). The Pythagoreanizing 
interpretation of the Timaeus reported by Plutarch in the 
present passage is a contamination of the Philolaic system 
and the planetary order widely though not universally 
adopted later (cf Heath, Aristarchus of Santos, pp. 106-107 ; 
Burkert, Weisheit und Wissenschaft, pp. 297-299, especially 



soul that had been distributed into seven parts. 
Many carry over into this context Pythagorean 
notions too, multiplying by three the distances of the 
bodies from the middle. This is brought about by 
placing the unit at the central fire, three at the 
counter-earth, nine at the earth and 27 at the moon 
and 81 at Mercury, 243 at Venus and at the sun 
itself 729 , b which is at the same time a square and 
a cubic number c ; and this is the reason why they 
sometimes call the sun too a square and a cube.** In 
this way these people increase the other numbers 

notes 121, 122, and 129, to which add Plutarch, Be Facie 
925 a), an order which, if the purpose of it was to make the 
sun midmost of the planets (cf, Theon Smyrnaeus, p. 138, 
16-18 [Hiller] ; Chalcidius, Platonis Timaeus, p. 140, 8-9 
[Wrobel] = p. 119, 16-18 [Waszink] ; Philo Jud., Quis 
Rerum Biv. Heres 222-224 = iii, p. 50, 9-19 [Wendland] ; 
Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum iii, p. 62, 7-9 and 18-22 
[Diehll), is incompatible with a system in which the earth 
and the counter-earth are planets. 

c 729 = 27 2 = 9 3 . See the next note infra. 

d Not the Pythagoreans to whom the original Philolaic 
system is ascribed (see the note next but one supra). They 
are said to have assigned the number seven to the sun as 
being the seventh of the moving bodies counted inwards from 
the fixed stars (Alexander, Metaph., pp. 38, 20-39, 3 ; 
Asclepius, Metaph., p. 36, 5-11 ; A. Delatte, Etudes sur la 
litterature pythagoricienne, p. 169 [Anecdota Arith. A 1, 
lines 20-22]) ; and, had they applied the triplication from the 
central fire as the unit that Plutarch here reports, they would 
have had to associate the number 81 with the sun. The later 
order with Mercury and Venus located between the moon 
and the sun, however, makes the sun seventh from the 
central fire ; and in such triplication or multiplication by 
any given ratio the seventh number is always both a square 
and a cube (Philo Jud., Be Opificio Mundi 92-94 = i, pp. 31, 
22-32, 12 [Cohn] ; Anatolius, p. 35, 14-21 [Heiberg] and 
partially in Iamblichus, Theolog. Arith., pp. 54, 13-55, 1 
[De Falco] ; cf. Theon Smyrnaeus, pp. 34, 16-35, 17 [Hiller]). 



(1028) toZs 7 pirrXao tao (jlols / ttoXv 7ov /card Xoyov ovtol 
ye 7Tapa7Tatov7€s, el ri 2 7cov yecopLerpiKtou o(f>eX6s 
io7w drro8el£ecov , /cat /xa/cpcp mdavcorepovs rrapa- 

jSaAetl^ 3 OV70LS drro8eiKVVOV7eS 70VS OpfMCOfJLeVOVS 

€K€i0€v, ov8 olvtovs rrav7drraoiv etjaKpLpovvras* 
aAAa cbs k'yyiora Xeyov7as 5 ort rrjs jxev rjXiov Sta- 

fJL€7pOV TTpOS 77jV 8ldjJLeTpOV TTjS yfj$ X6yOS €GTL 

8co8eKarrXdoLos 7rjs 8e yrjs av* rrdXw Sta/xeVpou 
rrpos 7rjv oeXrjvqs Sidjjierpov rpirrXdoios 6 8e <f>ai- 
vofievos iXdx(,<J70S 7oav drrXavcov do7epcov ovk eXdr- 
7ova 7rjs 8ia/ji€7pov 7rjs yrjs r) TpvTr)p,6piov e^et 
D ttjv 8idp,€7pov 7rj 8e oXrj o<f>aipa 77Js yrjs rrpos 7r)v 
oXrjv G(j>alpav rrjs oeXrjvrjs cos irrrd /cat ct/coat rrpos 
(ev} eariy Qcoo<f)6pov 8e /cat yfjs at jiev 8idjxeTpoi 
rov 8irrXdaiov at 8e o<f>alpat rov oKTarrXdotov* 

1 TptirXaarfjLois -e, u, Escor. 72, Aldine. 

2 el T€ -e, u, f, m, r, Escor. 72, Aldine. 

3 E, B, e, u 2 (TTapapdXXtLV -u 1 ), m, Escor. 72 ; napaXa^lv 
-f, r ; 7Tapa\af$€lv avrol -Wyttenbach ; <a>$> napapaXclv 
-B. Miiller (1873) ; but cf. Lucian, Demosthenis Encomium 
32 (iii, p. 376, 23-24 [Jacobitz]) : . . . TratSta Trapa/JaAAeiv rw 


4 f, m, r ; igaKpifiovvTcs -E, B, e, u, Escor. 72, Aldine. 
8 e superscript over a -E 1 ; Xdyovras -all other mss. 

6 E, B ; rrjs yrjs 8* av -all other mss., Aldine. 

7 <li>> -added by Wyttenbach ; Trpoatori -mss. ; -npos <ev 
X6yos> eW-B. Muller (1873). 

8 at Be a<f>alpai tov oKTarrXdaiov -omitted by r. 

« They would be Mars: 2187, Jupiter: 6561, Saturn: 
19,683, fixed stars : 59,049. 

b These are approximately the figures of Hipparchus (the 
diameters of earth, moon, and sun are as I : J : 12 J) ; cf. 
Heath, Aristarchus of Samos, pp. 342 and 350. 

c That is to say not less than the diameter assigned to the 
moon by Hipparchus (cf. Boll, R.-E. vi [1909], col. 2411, 
6-11). Contrary to the contention that all the fixed stars are 



also by triplications, going far astray of what is 
reasonable, if there is any use in geometrical demon- 
strations, and proving that in comparison with them- 
selves those who proceed from such demonstrations 
are far more credible, though these are themselves 
speaking not with absolute precision either but in 
close approximations when they say that the ratio of 
the sun's diameter to the diameter of the earth is 
twelve to one and of the earth's diameter on the 
other hand to the moon's diameter is three to one b 
and that what appears to be the smallest of the 
fixed stars has a diameter not less than a third part 
of the diameter of the earth c and that for the whole 
sphere of the earth to the whole sphere of the moon 
the ratio is as twenty-seven to <(one) d and that the 
diameters of Venus and of the earth have the ratio 
of two to one e and their spheres the ratio of eight to 

larger than the earth {e.g. Cleomedes, Be Motu Circulari i, 
xi, 58 and n, iii, 97 -pp. 106, 2-8 and 176, 11-24 [Ziegler] ; 
Proclus, In Platonis Rem Publicam ii, p. 218, 5-13 [Kroll]) 
Philoponus (Meteor. , p. 15, 18-23) in support of Aristotle 
(Meteorology 339 b 7-9 ; cf. Areius Didymus, Epitomes 
Frag. Phys. 8 [Dox. Graeci, p. 450, 10-11]) cites unnamed 
astronomers (possibly from Arrian, cf. ibid., p. 15, 13) to 
the effect that the earth is not smaller than all the fixed stars. 

d i.e. 3 3 : l 3 (cf. Euclid, Elements xii, Prop. 18). So 
Hipparchus as reported by Theon Smyrnaeus, p. 197, 9-12 
(Hiller) and Chalcidius, Platonis Timaeus, p. 161, 18-22 
(Wrobel) = p. 143, 5-8 (Waszink). 

e According to Cleomedes, De Motu Circulari n, iii, 96 
(p. 174, 25-27 [Ziegler]) the diameter of Venus is one-sixth 
that of the sun ; it would then be to the earth's diameter as 
two to one if, as Plutarch has just said (1028 c supra), the 
sun's diameter is to the earth's as twelve to one. According 
to Ptolemy Hipparchus said- that the apparent diameter of 
Venus is about a tenth that of the sun (B. R. Goldstein, " The 
Arabic Version of Ptolemy's Planetary Hypotheses," Trans- 



(1028) exovac Aoyov, ro Se Sidarrjfia rrjs iKXenrriKrjs 
OKias rrjs 1 Sta/zeVpou rrjs aeArjvirjs rpLirAdaiov, o S* 
€KTp€7T€Tat irAdros 7] (jeArjvr) rod Sta fieaov 2 rwv 
£ajSta>t> 3 €<})* e/carepa Sa>SeKa/zot/>oi>. 4 at Se Trpos 
rjAtov 5 crx^crei? avrfjs iv rpiyojvois Kal rerpaycovotg 
drrooriqixaai Sixotojjlovs /cat afi<f>iKVpTOvs cr^^ta- 
Tiafiovs Aanfldvovoiv e£ Se £a>Sta SteAflouaa ttjv 
TravaeArjvov (Lairep rtvd ovfufrajVLav iv i^arova) 7 
E Sta iraocov arrohihajoi. rod Se rjXtov rrepl rds 
rpoTTCLS eAa^tara f<rat fiiycara ire pi rrjv tcr^/xeptav 8 
e^ovros KivrjfJLCLTa, St' <Lv acfxupel rrjs rjp,epas Kal 

1 rod -f. 

2 rov gig. fieoou (or 8ta /xc'crcui>) -Turneb us ; rrjs Biafxerpov 
-E, B ; rod btafxGrpov -all other mss., Aldine. 

3 twhlwv -E, B, e, u ; £«W -f, m, r, Escor. 72, Aldine. 

4 E, B ; h(x)h€Kart]ix6piov -all other mss., Aldine. 

5 rjXtov -B ; jj/Xiov (with ov superscript over ov and acute 
accent superscript over r)) -E ; r)\iov -all other mss., Aldine. 

6 rov -u. 

7 E, m, r ; i^arovoj -B, f ; agarovw -e, u, Escor. 72 (with 
c superscript over d). 

8 E, B ; Trcpt ttJ? Icrrjfieplas -all other mss., Aldine. 

actions of the American Philos. Soc, N.S. Ivii, 4 [1967], 
p. 8, col. 1 sub ftnem). 

a i.e. 2 8 : l 3 . 

b Cf. Plutarch, De Facie 923 b and my note ad loc. 
(L.C.L. xii, p. 57, note d). 

c Cf. Theon Smyrnaeus, p. 194, 8-13 and p. 135, 14-15 
(Hiller) with Chalcidius, Platonis Timaeus, p. 137, 14-15 
(Wrobel) = p. 117, 8-9 (Waszink) ; Geminus, Elementa 
Astronomiae xii, 21 with v, 53 (pp. 142, 25-144, 1 and p. 62, 
8-9 [Manitius]) ; Martianus Capella, viii, 867. The devia- 
tion to either side of the ecliptic is given as five degrees by 
Ptolemy, Syntaxis v, 12 (i, p. 407, 10-15 [Heiberg]) and as 
five and a half degrees by Proclus, Hypotyposis iv, 2 (pp. 86, 
24-88, 1 [Manitius]). For 6 Sta fiioov (instead of the more 



one a and that the extent of the shadow eclipsing the 
moon is triple her diameter b but that the breadth of 
the moon's deviation to one side or the other of the 
circle through the middle of the zodiacal signs is 
twelve degrees of latitude. Her positions relative 
to the sun in trine and quartile aspects assume the 
configurations of half and gibbous d ; and, when she 
has traversed six signs of the zodiac, e she exhibits the 
plenilune as it were a consonance consisting of the 
six tones of an octave/ As the sun has his minimal 
movement at the solstices and his maximal move- 
ment at the equinox,* 7 of these movements by which 

common 6 Sia ftdatav) tu>v £a>8iW rf, Theon Sniyrnaeus, p. 
133, 21 and p. 135, 18 (Miller) and Simplicius, De Caelo, 
p. 494, 27-28. 

d Cf Pliny, XAL ii, 80 (" itaqvie in quadrato solis dividua 
est, in triquetro scminani ambitur orbe, inpletur anteni in 
adverso . . .") and Proclus, In Platonis Rem Publicam ii, 
p. 44, 18-22 (Kroll). For the terminology cf. Geminus, 
Elementa Astronomiae ii, 1-19 (pp. 18, 16-26, 2 [Manitius]) ; 
Ptolemy, Tetrabiblos i, xiv, 1 (pp. 35, 20-36, 4 [Boll-Boer]); 
and A. Bouche-Leclercq, Uastrologie grecque (Paris, 1899), 
pp. 165-172. 

r i.e. when she is in opposition, Srav /caret htd^Tpov ytvi\Ta.i 
rio 7)\lq> . . . (Geminus, op. eit., ix, 9 = p. 126, 24-26 [Mani- 

f Cf. Censor in us, De Die Xatali xiii, 5 (p. 24, 2-4 
[Hultsch]) : ". . . tonos esse sex, in quibus sit dia pason 
symphonia," where the six tones are not as here, however, 
the six signs of the zodiac through which the moon passes 
from conjunction to opposition. For this correlation of the 
plenilune with the octave cf. rather Ptolemy, Harmonica, 
p. 108, 13-18 and p. 109, 4-6 (During) and A. Boeckh, 
Gesammelte Kleine Schriften iii (Leipzig, 1866), p. 173, n. 3. 

9 Cf Cleomedes, De Motu Circulari i, vi, 26 and 31-32 
(p. 52, 13-20 ; pp. 56, 27-58, 1 ; and p. 58, 13-15 [Ziegler]). 
On this and the other errors in this sentence of Plutarch's 
cf O. Neugebauer, A.J.P., lxiii (1942),' pp. 458-459. 



(1028) rfj vvktL TrpoarldrjGLV rj tovvolvtlov, ovros 6 Aoyo? 
€(7tlv iv rats 1 Trpcorais rjfJLepous A' /xera tcls* x €L ~ 
fji€pLva9 rporras rfj ^/xepa 7rpoaTi9r)OL to Hktov rfjs 
V7T€pox?}S fjv r/ iitytoTTj vv£ rrpos ttjv ^paxvTdrrjv 
rjfjiepav €7TOi€i rats* o €<p€t;7)S A to rptrov to be 
rjfjLiav rats Xolttolls olXP 1 t V^ ivrjfjLeplas, iv e^airXa- 
aiois koI TpnrXaoiois oiaoTrjfiaai rod XP° V0V rfv 
avoujiaXiav iTraviotov* XaASatot Si Xiyovai to eap 
F iv to) oca Teaodpcov ycyveo 9 at 77009 to pL€T07TOjpov 
iv Se tw Sta TrivT€ irpos tov ^6t/xcDva irpos Si to 
9ipos iv toj Sta ttclocov. el S' opOtos 6 TZvpnriSrjs 
SiopL^erat Oipovs reoaapas fifjvas /cat x €t i Ltc ^ vos> 

(f)t\r)S t OTTwpas Sitttvxovs rjpos t lgovs 

1 iv <yap> rats -Wyttenbach. 

2 ras -Stephanas ; yap -MSS, 3 rjjjiepav -omitted by B. 

4 ip.-rroLel -B. 5 rat? -f, m, r ; raj -all other mss., Aldine. 

6 B. Miiller (1873) ; i-navKjovvros -mss. 

A sixth, a third, and a half of the excess of the longest 
night over the shortest day if added to the shortest day** 
the longest day, i.e. the day at the summer solstice and not 
that at the equinox. Plutarch's fractions should have been 
a twelfth, a sixth, and a fourth as in Cleomedes, Be Motv 
Circulari 1, vi, 27-28 (pp. 50, 15-52, 2 [Ziegler]) and 
Martianus Capella, viii, 878. 

b i.e. the total increment of the second thirty days (-J-+i) 
is threefold and the total increment of the third ({■+ 3 4- £) is 
sixfold the first (■£-). For the expression compare r-qv rrjs 
rvxys dvco^iaXlav t-navioovv (Be Fraterno Amove 484 d). 

c So also Aristides Quintilianus, Be Musica iii, 19, who 
says (p. 119, 15-18 [Winnington-Ingram]), however, that 
these ratios of the seasons were ascribed to Pythagoras and 
that (ibid., p. 119, 10-15) they follow from assignment of the 
numbers eight (that of air) to spring, four (that of fire) to 
summer, six (that of earth) to autumn, and twelve (that of 
water) to winter. The correlation of these numbers with the 



he subtracts from the day and adds to the night or 
contrariwise this is the ratio : in the first thirty days 
after the winter solstice he adds to the day a sixth of 
the difference by which the longest night exceeded 
the shortest day and in the next thirty a third and 
in the rest until the equinox a half, thus equalizing 
the disparity of the time in sixfold and threefold 
intervals. b The Chaldaeans assert that spring turns 
out to be related to autumn in the ratio of the fourth 
and to winter in that of the fifth and to summer in 
that of the octave. c If Euripides is right, however, 
in distinguishing four months of summer and an equal 
number of winter 

And of dear autumn twain and twain of spring, d 

seasons, however, depends upon the correlation in the 
Timaeus of the four regular solids with air, fire, earth, and 
water (ibid., pp. 118, 29-119, 9) ; and it results, moreover, 
in making three to two, the fifth, the ratio of winter to spring 
rather than that of spring to winter as professed and re- 
quired. According to O. Neugebauer (A. J. P., lxiii [1912], 
pp. 455-458) the ratios were derived from twelve, nine, eight, 
and six, taken to be the number of days by which spring, 
summer, winter, and autumn respectively exceed a common 
measure (really eleven, nine, seven, and six respectively ac- 
cording to Callippus in the Eudoxi Ars Astronomica, col. 
xxiii = p. 25 [Blass]), so that originally the ratios of these 
increments or deviations were : spring to autumn (not to 
summer) as twelve to six (the octave), to summer as twelve 
to nine (the fourth), and to winter as twelve to eight (the 
fifth). This is rejected by Burkert (Weisheit und Wissen- 
schaft, p. 333, n. 110), who seems to think that the parallel 
passage in Aristides Quintilianus makes it wrong to seek the 
origin of the ratios in any astronomical calculations and that 
the speculation was obviously meant to show in the numbers 
the opposition of summer and winter, though in fact neither 
the ratios nor the numbers in Aristides Quintilianus do this. 
d Euripides, frag. 990 (Nauck, Trag. Graer. Frag. 2 , 
p. 679). 



(1028) iv rw 8id iraoGiv at copai /xera/JaAAovau' . eVtoc 8k 
y$ /xev ttjv 1 rod TTpooXapL^avofjievov 2 ^cupav dVoSt- 
86vt€s G€.\r}vrf 8k rrjv virdrrjv SriAjScova 8k /cat 
1029 <&a)G(f)6pov iv Siarovois* (jrapyndTaisY kcli Arj^a- 
vols kivovvtcs olvtov tov rjXiov cos peor]v ovvzyziv 
to Std ttclocov d^covGLV drrexovTa TTJg fikv yfjs TO 
8t,d tt€vt€ Trjs 8k tcov drrXavchv to 8id Teoodpojv . 

32. 'AAA' OVT€ TOVTtOV TO KOjJuJjOV Oi7fT€Tai TL- 

vos dXr]6€Las ovt Ikzivoi rTavTarraoL tov aKpifiovs 

1 yij pkv iv rrj -E (three dots superscript over eV and *v 
superscript over rrj -E 1 ), e, u, f, in, r, Escor. 72 ; yijv pkv 
rTjv -B. 

2 From Aa/xjSavo/xeVou (f. 226 recto) to the end of the 
essay a new hand in e. 

3 aeXrjvTjv -r. 

4 iv rots hiarovois (htayovois -r) -f, Fll, r. 

5 <TTapvndrais> -B. M tiller (1873) after Maurommates, 
who wished to substitute it either for Xtxavols or for biarovois- 

a With what follows cf. especial! y Excerpta Neapolitana 
24 (Musici Scriptores Graeci 9 pp. 418, 14-419, 7 [Jan]) = 
Inscriptio Canobi {Ptolemaei Opera ii, p. 154, 1-10 [Hei- 
berg]) but with the better alignment of Hal ma, Hypotheses et 
lipoques des Planetes de C. PtoUmee . . . (Paris, 1820), pp. 
61-62 ; also Alexander of Ephesus in Theon Smyrnaeus, 
pp. 140, 5-141, 4 (Hiller) and Censorinus, De Die Natali 
xiii, 3-5 (pp. 23, 12-24, 6 [Hultseh]) with W. Burkert, 
Pftihlogus, cv (1961), pp. 32-43 and B. L. van der Waerden, 
R.-E. Supplement x (1965), cols. 857, 65-859, 35. 

b The note added to the scale below the hypate (the top- 
most string that gives the lowest tone : see supra note e on 
Plat. Quaest. 1007 e), as Plutarch himself says in 1029 k 
infra (see page 335, note b). 

c For the variation in the oblique cases of LtiA/W as of 
(fraivow (1029 b infra) see De Facie 925 a and 941 c with my 
note ad loc. (L.C.L. xii, p. 184, note a). 

d Cf. [Plutarch], De Mvsica 1134 f (. . . rrjv hidrovov 
7Tapv7rdrr)v . . . rrjv hidrovov Xixavov) and the note of Einarson 
and De Lacy ad loc. {L.C.L. xiv, p. 375, n. d). W. Burkert 



it is in the ratio of an octave that the seasons change. 
Some people,® moreover, assigning to earth the 
position of the proslambanomenos b and to the moon 
the hypate and having Mercury c and Venus move 
in the positions of the diatonic (parhypate) and 
lichanos d maintain that the sun himself as mese 
holds the octave together, 6 being at the remove of a 
fifth from the earth and of a fourth from the sphere 
of the fixed stars/ 

32. But the cleverness of these people is not con- 
cerned with any truth, and those others do not aim 
at accuracy at all. 7 To those, however, who think 

(Philologus, cv [19611, p. 33, n. 2) thinks that the illogical 
ev oiarovois Kal XixavoTs was in Plutarch's source. The ex- 
pression used for Mercury and Venus may be a reference 
to the fact that the parhypate and the lichanos are " mov- 
able " notes: contrast tovs iorayras (1029 b infra) and cf. 
Cleonides, Introductio 6 and Gaudentius, Harmonica Intro- 
d actio 17 (Musici Scriptores Graeci, pp. 189, 20-190, 5 and 
p. 345, 4-12 [Jan]) ; Aristides Quintilianus, De Musica i, 6 
(p. 9, 25-26 [Winnington-Ingram]). 

e For the sun as midmost of the seven planets — and so the 
paradigm of the musical mese (Nicomachus, Harmonices 
Man. 3= Musici Scriptores Graeci, p. 242, 2-7 [Jan]) — 
ovvdyovra Kal avvoeovra tols £</>* CKarepa avrov rpidoas cf. 
Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum iii, p. 62, 7-9 (Diehl) ; and 
for the mese itself as ovvbecfios cf. [Aristotle], Problemata 
919 a 25-26. 

f Cf. Censorinus, De Die Natali xiii, 4-5 (p. 23, 18-20 and 
pp. 23, 27-24, 2 [Hultsch]) and Alexander of Ephesus in 
Theon Smyrnaeus, p. 140, 8 and 15 with Theon's criticism 
ibid., p. 141, 16-19 (Miller). 

9 Cf. ovo* avToits Ttavr6.Tto.aiv e^aKpifiovvras (1028 c supra), 
which applies a fortiori to the preceding 77oAAot who " carry 
over into this context Pythagorean notions . . . going far 
astray of what is reasonable . . ." (1028 b-c). It is to these 
that the eVctvot here refers and not, as Hubert supposes, to 
the " Chaldaeans " of 1028 e-f supra. 



(1029) exovTOLL. of? S' ovv ov So/cet ravra rfjs rov HXd- 
tojvos diryjpTTJadai Slclvolcls e/ceu>a KopuSfj (jxivtlrai 

TtOV jJLOVOLKQJV X6yOJV €\€odai f TO 7T€VT€ T€Tpa^dp- 

8(x)v l ovtcov 2 rcov vrrdrajv* /cat fieaojv /cat ovvrjfj,- 
fievcov /cat 8ie£ei;y/xeVa>v 4 /cat vrreppoXaiajv ev rrevre 
Staarrifiaoc TtrdxOcu tovs 'rrXdvrjTas, cLv to [iiv 

B ioTl TO aTTO G€AtJv7)S icfS TjXlOV KOI TOVS 6jJLo8p6[A0VS 

rjXiO), UriX^ajva /cat $>ojo(f)6pov, erepov to drro rov- 

TtDV €77t TOV "Ap€OS b IlvpoeVTOL, TpiTOV 0€ TO fJL€Ta£v 
TOVTOV* KOLL QaedoVTOS , eld ££rjS TO €7TL QclLVCjOVOL, 
/Cat 7T€fJL7TTOV rj8rj TO C1770 TOVTOV 7TpOS TY]V a7rXavfj 

ocfratpav ojcttc tovs opl^ovTas (f)doyyov$ tcl tctoci- 
XopSa tov t6l>v 7rXava>jjL€vcov Xoyov ^X €LV doTtpojv. 

1 E, B, f, m, r, Escor. 72 (three dots over ^o)* Aldine ; 

rerpad . . . vac. 1 . . . px (9 and x erased) -e ; rerpa . . . vac. 2 
. . . p . . . vac. 2 . . . -u. 

2 ovras -B. 

3 twv vttoltcov -Basil. ; rov irnarwv -E (vttoltcov -E 1 ), B ; 
tov vttootcov -e, Escor. 72 (with wv superscript over ov) ; 
tov vttogtov -u ; Ttov vttootojv -f, m, r, Aldine. 

4 bia^cvyficvcjv -r ; Sicf ayp.4vwv -e, u. 

5 B, f, m, r ; depos -E, e, u, Escor. 72, Aldine. 

6 tovtwv -r. 

a Cf. De Defectu Orac. 430 a ; Nicomachus, Harmonic es 
Man. 11, 5-6 and Cleonides, Introductio 10 (Musici Scrip- 
tores Graeci, pp. 259, 13-260, 4 and p. 201, 8-13 [Jan]). 

* In De Defectu Orac. 430 a it is not the intervals of the 
planets that are said to be five but their " periods " (cf. 
[Plutarch], De Placitis 892 b = Dox. Graeci, p. 363 a 9-15). 

c So in De Defectu Orac. 430 a (. . . 'HAiou #cai <bojo(j)6pov 
teal ZtiX^covos opLobpofiovvrcov). In [Plato], Epinomis 987 b 4-5 
Mercury is said to be 6p.6Spop.os with the sun and Venus ; 
and " Timaeus Locrus " uses Sta to 6p.ohpop.fiv aXlw of Venus 
(97 a) just after (96 e) having called Mercury and Venus 
tVoSpo/xot deXlw (cf. [Plutarch], De Placitis 889 c and 892 b = 
Dox. Graeci, p. 346 a 4-6 and p. 363 a 11-13 ; [Aristotle], 



these notions not remote from Plato's meaning the 
following will appear to be closely connected with 
the musical ratios, that, there being five tetrachords 
— those of the lowest and middle and conjunct and 
disjunct and highest — , a the planets have been 
arranged in five intervals, b of which one is that from 
moon to sun and those that keep pace with the sun, 
Mercury and Venus, c second that from these to the 
fiery planet of Mars, d and third that between this 
and Jupiter, and then next that extending to 
Saturn/ and finally fifth that from this to the sphere 
of fixed stars/ so that the sounds bounding the 
tetrachords correspond to the planets. q Further- 

Be Mundo 399 a 8-9 ; Theon Smyrnaeus, p. 136, 20-21 
[Hiller]). Plato himself, however, in Timaeus 38 d 2-3 says 
that the revolution of Venus and of Mercury is ra^et laohpo- 
fiov tjXloj (cf 36 D 5 : ra^ei rpet? y.kv ofiolajs) '•> cf. looraxciS 
in Philo Jud., Be Cherubim 22 (i, p. 175, 11-13 [Cohn]) and 
Philoponus, De Aeternitate Mundi vi, 21 (p. 199, 10-15 
[Rabe]). For the form ZriA/Wa page 330 f note c supra. 

d Cf Plutarch, frag, ix, 5 (p. 46, 3 [Bernardakis]) = frag. 
157, 80 (Sandbach); [Plutarch], De Placitis, 889 n = Box. 
Graeci, pp. 344 a 20-345 a 1 ; Theon Smyrnaeus, p. 130, 
24 (Hiller). 

• For the form (baivwva see page 330, note c supra. 

1 This reduction of the planetary intervals to five involves 
not only the mistake of making the orbits of the sun, Mer- 
cury, and Venus one and the same but also the inconsistency 
of counting the interval from Saturn to the fixed stars while 
at the same time omitting the interval from earth to moon 
(cf. Helmer, Be An. Proc, p. 59). 

a The five tetrachords, not being all consecutive, are 
bounded by seven different notes (cf. Boethius, Be Institu- 
tione Musica iv, xii = pp. 334, 23-335, 6 [Friedlein]) ; but in 
the preceding scheme the five consecutive intervals must be 
bounded by six terms, one of which, since three of the seven 
planets constitute a single boundary, cannot be a planet and 
is in fact the sphere of the fixed stars. 



(1029) en roiwv rovs naXatovs lofjiev virdras 1 fikv 8vo 
rpels hk vrfras fiiav 2 8k fjLearjv kol [ilav Trapaixearjv 
ti6€[A€V0vs, ojot€ s rots 7rXdvr]cnv loapidfiovs elvai 
rovs icrrcoras. ol 8k vewrepoi rov 7roooAa/xjSavo- 
fxevov, rovqj SiafiepovTa* rrjs VTrdr-qs* irrl ro fiapv 
rd^avres ro fxkv oXov ovarrjfjia 81? Sta iraotov i- 
iroirjoav ra>v 8k ov/jl^ojvlcov rrjv Kara (frvoiv ovk 
irrjprjoav rd£w ro yap Sta rrevre rrporepov yiyve- 
rai rov 8ia reooapcov, irrl ro fiapv rrj vvdrrf 
rovov 1 TTpoo\r}<j)6£vros, 6 8k WXdrojv 8rjX6s ioriv 
inl ro 6£v TrpooXapLfSdvajv Xlyei yap iv rfj TloXi- 
rtiq rwv o/crco o<f>aipa>v tKdorrjv Trepufxspeiv [eir*] 8 
i-n avrfj Hetpijva 9 fiefirjKVLav, a8tiv 8k Trdoas k'va 


2 vtJt€l$ /cat /xtav "T. 

3 iv W -«. 

4 8ia<f>€povro$ -11. 

5 t^s- <v7T<LTajv> vtt<it7)£ -H. Weil et Tli. Reiiiach, Pht- 
tarque : De la musique (Paris, 1900), p. Ixix, n. 4. 

6 E, B, f, m, r ; dird-rg -e, u, Escor. 72, Aldine. 

7 E (tovcj -E 1 with o> remade to ot>), B, e, u, Escor. 72 ; 
rod rovov -f, m, r, Aldine. 

8 Deleted by Hubert ; rr)v -Stephanus. 

9 E, B ; oeiprjvac -e, u, Escor. 72, Aldine : otiprjvav -f, m ; 
crciprjvas Hf. 

n /.*., apart from the proslambanomenos, tiie seven fixed 
notes that bound the five tetrachords • cf. Boethius, De 
Inst itut tone Musica iv, xiii (pp. 335, 8-337, IS [Friedlein]) ; 
Cleonides, Introductio V and Gaudentius, Harmonica Intro- 



more, we know that the ancients reckon two notes 
called hypate and three nete but one mese and one 
paramese, so that the stable notes a are equal in 
number with the planets. The moderns, however, 
by placing an additional note, the proslambano- 
menos, lower in the scale than the hypate, 6 from 
which it differs by a tone, made the whole scale a 
double octave c but did not preserve the natural 
order of the consonances, for the fifth turns out to be 
prior to the fourth when to the hypate a tone has 
been added lower in the scaled It is obvious, how- 
ever, that Plato makes the addition to the higher end 
of the scale, for in the Republic he says e that each of 
the eight spheres f carries around in its revolution a 
Siren standing on it and they all sing emitting a single 

ductio 17 (Musici Scriptores Graeci, p. 185, 16-25 and p. 345, 
1-4 [Jan]). 

b That is the hypate of the lowest tetrachord, as would 
be made explicit by the supplement of Weil-Reinach, rijs 
<.tma.TO)v> vnaTrjs ; but rfj vrrdrr) rovov it poa\r}(f>6 ivros at the 
end of the sentence shows that Plutarch wrote simply rrjs 
vTra-rqs here just as Nicomachus wrote ttjv vttolttjv for rr)v 
vtrdrwv vTrdrrjv (cf. Musici Scriptores Graeci, p. 258, 2-3 

c Cf. Nicomachus, Harmonices Man. 11, 4 (Musici 
Scriptores Graeci, p. 258, 2-11 [Jan]) and Boethius, De 
Institutione Musica i, xx (pp. 211, 21-212, 7 [Friedlein]). 

d i.e., the scale ought to begin with a tetrachord not in- 
creased to a fifth by the tone of the proslambanomenos, for 
the fourth is " naturally prior " to the fifth : cf. Nicomachus, 
Harmonices Man. 7, 9, and 12 (Musici Scriptores Graeci, 
p. 249, 2-19; p. 252, 4-15; and p. 262, 7-11 [Jan]) and 
Arithmetica Introductio n, xxvi, 1 (p. 134, 5-15 [Hoche]) ; 
Theon Smyrnaeus, p. 66, 12-14 (Hiller). 

• Republic 617 b 4-7. 

/ Plato said not " spheres" but i-nl hk ra>v kvkXcjv . . . £<j>* 
€Kaorov. See supra 1028 a with note e and Plat. Quasst. 
1007 a with note d there. 



(1029) rovov 1 Uloas* €k he 7raotov Kepdvvvodai filav dp/io- 
vlav. avrai 8' dvte^erat rd Beta ttpovoi /cat 
KdTaSovm* Trjs lepas nepioSov 1 /cat ^opetas" 5 o/cra- 
XopSov* ifjifieXeiav o/cra> yap r^oav /cat oi Trptorot, 
D rwv SnrXaaicov /cat TpLTrXaoicov Spot Xoyojv, €/ca- 
repa TrpooapiOiioviiivqs fxepiSi rfjs /j,ovd8o$. ol Se 
TTpeofSvrepoi Mowa? 7rape'Sa>/cav /cat rjfuv 1 evvea, 

1 €va <.£K<i(7T7)v> rovov -Hubert. 

2 E ; toas -B ; Uloas -all other mss., Aldine. 

8 Stephanus ; tipovocu koli Kardhovoai -mss. 

4 E, B ; Trpoobov -all other mss., Aldine. 

5 E, B ; xuptcLS -e, u, Escor. 72, Aldine ; x°P*- aL s ""£ m » r * 

6 tt^v oKTa^op8ov -f, m, r. 

7 MSS. (/xoucrav -u) ; koX Movaas napeSatKav rjfilv -Pohlenz. 

a Each emits one tone (Republic 617 b 6) ; but even 
Proclus, who elsewhere states this clearly (In Platonis Rem 
Publicam ii, pp. 236, 29-237, 1 and p. 238, 15 [Kroll]), says 
KLVcl Be ra$ Titipijvas aSctv /uav <f>Qjvi)v Uloas eva rovov . . . 
(ibid., i, p. 69, 10-12 [Kroll]). Hubert's supplement, there- 
fore, would be a case of improving rather than restoring 
what Plutarch wrote. 

h Plutarch must assume that the Siren of the moon emits 
hypatd of the lowest tetrachord and that of Saturn nete of 
the highest so that the additional eighth, that of the fixed 
stars, would be a tone higher in pitch than the latter. Plato 
does not say, however, what tone is emitted by which Siren 
and nothing that he does say would prevent the eighth tone 
from being understood as an addition to the lower end of the 
scale, whether the tone highest in pitch or lowest is as- 
sociated with the moon, for which two opposed theories c/. 
Nicomachus, Harmonices Man. 3 and Excerpta 3 (Musici 
Scriptores Graeci, pp. 241, 18-242, 11 and pp. 271, 18-273, 
24 [Jan]). 

c i.e. " relaxed " in the musical sense, referring to the 
gentle sound of the harmony (cf. De Genio Socratis 590 c-d : 
. . . rr\v 7rpa6r7jra rijs </>a>vrjs €K€iirqs etc naou>v avv7fpfioarfi€V7)s) 
and so differentiating the tones of these Sirens from the shrill 
song, Xiyvprj doiZ^ of Homer's (Odyssey xii, 44 and 183 ; c/. 



tone and all are blended into a single concord. 6 
These Sirens free from strain c entwining things 
divine d chant a harmony of eight notes over the 
sacred circuit of the dance, 6 for eight was also the 
number of the primary terms of the double and 
triple ratios, the unit being counted along with each 
of the two classes/ And we too have got from our 
elders the tradition that there are nine Muses,** 

Apollonius Rhodius, iv, 892-893 and 914), Xiyvprj being 
ofeta and vvvtovos, the opposite of dviefiivrj (cf. [Aristotle], 
De Audibilibus 804 a 2 1 -29 ) . Proclus is at pains to dist ingu ish 
these two groups of Sirens and in fact maintains that ac- 
cording to Plato there are three different kinds (In Platonis 
Rem Publicam ii, pp. 238, 21-239, 8 [Kroll] and In Platonis 
Cratylum* p. 88, 14-26 [Pasquali]). 

d Etymologizing Seip^v, as is shown by Quaest. Conviv. 
745 F (. . . T,€ipr}vas 6vofid£,€iv, elpovoas rd dela koli Xeyovoas iv 
"kihov . . .), apparently as if from acta (Laconian for 0eta) 
€ip€tv. Etym. Magnum 710, 19-20 (Gaisford) has napd to 
eipco, to Xiyto, elprjv kcll TrXeovacrfxto rod or, oetp^v. rj trapd to 
eipcu to avfnrAeKLi), the latter from Herodian Technicus, Reli- 
quiae ii, 1, p. 579, 13-14 (Lenz). 

* Cf. Philo Jud., De Mutatione Nominum 72 (iii, p. 169, 
27-28 [Wendland]) and De Specialibus Legibus ii, 151 (v, 
p. 122, 13-15 [Cohn]) ; [Plato], Epinomis 982 e 4-6 from 
Plato, Timaeus 40 c 3-4. 

/ For the unit as common to both even numbers and odd 
being counted twice and so giving eight terms (1, 2, 4, 8 
and 1, 3, 9, 27) see supra 1018 f — 1019 a with note b there, 
but for the same reason being taken only once and so giving 
seven terms (1, 2, 4, 8, 3, 9, 27) see 1027 e supra. With 
ot ixpGiroi to>v . . . opoi Xoycov here cf. ra>v vnoKeifievaiV dpiOpicov 
. . . eberjGc iiei^ovas opovs AafieZv iv rols avrols \6yois (1019 B 
supra with note d there). 

" We too . . .," for this was not the universal belief: 
cf. Quaest. Conviv. 744 <: — 745 b (where at the end Plutarch 
identifies the three Fates of Republic 617 c with the three 
Delphian Muses) and 746 e ; M. Mayer, R.-E. xvi/1 (1933), 
cols. 687, 50-691, 66. 



(1029) ras f/iv oktoj Kaddnep 6 UXqltodv rrepl rd ovpdvia 
ttjv 8* ivdrrjv rd rrcpiyeta KrjAelv 1 dvaKaAoufievriv 
teal Kadioraaav £k irXdvqs Kal 8ia<f)opas dvoapLoXLav 
Kal rapax^jv exovoas. 2 

33. Hkott€lt€* 8e firj rov jikv ovpavov dyei Kal 
rd ovpdvia rals ir€pl avrrjv* epupLeXeiais Kal kivt\- 
g€<jw rj fpvx^j <f>povLjjLa)rdrri Kal ScKatordrrj yeyo- 
vvia, yeyove 8e roiavrrj rots /ca0' dpfiovtav Xoyois, 
wv elKoves {iev vjrdpxovatv els rd GWfxara 5 iv rols 
E oparols Kal opoifjuevois pbepeai rov kogjxov Kal ato- 
p,aGW rj 8e irpixiTt] Kal Kvpiajrarrj 8vva/JLis dopdrajs* 
iyKeKparai rfj ifoxf) KCLL tro-P^X* 1 vvyufyuwov avrrjv 1 

1 KaXctv -r. 

2 e, u, f, m, r, Escor. 72, Aldine ; ixovcrrjs -E, B. 

3 E, B, r ; oKoireii at -e, u, f, m, Escor. 72. 

* Bernardakis ; clvttjv-mss. 6 mss. ; data/zara -Stephanus. 

6 aopdrcjs -r, f (in margin), m (in margin) ; oparovs -u 1 
(ov remade to o>) ; 6para>s -all other mss. 

7 Stephanus ; iavrrjv -mss. ; iavrfj -Hubert ; <auT7J> 
avrrjv -A. E. Taylor (Commentary on Plato's Timaeus, 
p. 157, n. 1). 

a This tacit identification of the Sirens of Republic 617 
b 4-7 with the Muses Ammonius in Quaest. Conviv. 745 f 
is made to assert explicitly after Plutarch in his own person 
had denied it (ibid. 745 c). It is later denied by Proclus too 
(In Platonis Rem Publicam ii, p. 237, 16-25 with ii, p. 68, 
5-16 [Kroll]), who ascribes it to ol iraXaioL (In Platonis 
Timaeum ii, p. 208, 9-14 and p. 210, 25-28 [Diehl]). It is 
explicit in Macrobius, In Somnium Scipionis ii, iii, 1-2 
( — Porphyrii in Platonis Timaeum . . . Fragmenta, pp. 59, 
11-60, 10 [Sodano]) and implicit in Porphyry, Uepl dyoA- 
lidrwv, frag. 8 (J. Bidez, Vie de Porphyre, p. 12*, 14-15) 
= Eusebius, Praep. Evang. iii, 11, 24 (i, p. 139, 19-20 
[Mras]) and Vita Pythagorae 31 (pp. 33, 19-34, 2 [Nauck]) 
and in the citation of Amelius by Joannes Lydus, De 
Mensibus iv, 85 (p. 135, 3-7 [Wiinsch]). The Muses are 
not mentioned in the two interpretations of the Sirens given 



eight of them, just as Plato says, being occupied with 
things celestial a and the ninth with those about the 
earth b to cast a spell upon them recalling them from 
vagrancy and discord and settling their capricious- 
ness and confusion. 

33. Consider, however, whether the heavens and 
the heavenly bodies are not guided by the soul with 
her own harmonious motions c when she has become 
most provident and most just and whether she has 
not become such by reason of the concordant ratios, d 
semblances of which are incorporated in the parts of 
the universe that are visible and seen, that is in 
bodies, but the primary and fundamental property of 
which has been invisibly blended in the soul e and 

by Theon Smyrnaeus, pp. 146, 9-147, 6 (Hiller) or in that 
given by Chalcidius, Platonis Timaeus, p. 167, 1-7 (Wrobel) 
= p. 148, 6-11 (Waszink). 

6 So Ammonius in Quaest. Conviv. 746 a (/xt'a oe rov ix*Ta£v 
yrjs /cat oeXijvrjs tottov eiriGKOiTOvoa /cat TTtpnroXovaa . . .) ; cf. 
rt re viToaeXrivios o^atpa in Porphyry, Ilept dyaA/idVaiv, frag. 8 
(cited in the last note supra). Others resolved the difficulty 
of identifying the nine Muses with Plato's eight Sirens by 
making the ninth the concord produced by the other eight 
(Macrobius, In Somnium Scipionis n, iii, 1-2). 

c Cf. Porphyry in Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum ii, p. 214, 
1 1 (= Porphyrii in Platonis Timaeum . . . Fragmenta, p. 60, 
18-19 [Sodano]) and Proclus himself, ibid, ii, p. 268, 7-8 and 
p. 279, 10-12 (Diehl) ; and Simplicius, De Anima y p. 40, 
37-38. With the reasons given by Plutarch here for rejecting 
the astronomical interpretations considered in chaps. 31-32 
supra cf. especially Proclus, ibid, ii, p. 212, 28-31 (Diehl). 

d See Plat. Quaest. 1003 a : cVct Sc fj ^vxh vov p,€T€Xap€ /cat 
apfiovias /cat yevojjdvrj 8td cri»/z<£a)vtas efjL<f>pa)v. . . . 

• See 1024 c supra (StaStooucrav ivravOa ras e/cctfov ct/cdvas") ; 
cf. Porphyry in Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum ii, p. 214, 15-16 
and pp. 214, 31-215, 3 ( = Porphyrii in Platonis Timaeum 
. . . Fragmenta, p. 60, 22-23 and p. 61, 13-15 [Sodano]) 
and Proclus himself, ibid., p. 295, 2-9 (Diehl). 



(1029) Kal 7T€i9t]Viov, del ra> Kpariara) Kal deiordrcp 
fie pet rwv aAAcor clttolvtcov ofJLOvoovvrajv. rrapaXa- 
fitov yap 6 8r]{iiovpyds dra^iav 1 Kal TrXypLpLeXeiav 
iv rals Kivrjaeat, rfjs dvappoarov Kal dvorjrov ipv- 
%rjs 8ia(f>€pofjL€vr]s irpos iavrrjv rd pkv 8io)piae Kal 
8iecrrr]G€ rd 8e Gvvrjyaye rrpos dXXrjXa Kal gvv- 
era£ev dpfiovtats Kal apiOjiols xp r ) G ° i l Ji€vo s > °* s> K0LL 
rd Kaxf>6rara 2 Gwpiara, XL601 Kal £vXa Kal (f)Xocol 3 
<f>VT<x>v Kal 8r)pia>v Sara* Kal TrurLat, 5 ovyKepav- 
F vvpueva Kal GwappLorropieva davpbaards piev dyaX- 
fidrajv oijjeis davpLaords 8e irapeyei $app,aKO)v koX 
opydvwv 8vvdpb€is. fj Kal ILrqvojv 6 Ktrtei)? errl 
deav avXrjTtov irapeKaXei ra pueipaKia Karapavdd- 
veiv olav* Kepara Kal £vXa Kal KaXapoi Kal Sara, 7 
Xoyov pierexovra Kal Gvp(f>a)vias , cj)a)vrjv d(f)irjOL. 
to 8 puev yap dpidptp Trdvra iireoiKevai 9 Kara ttjv 
YlvQayopiKrjv aTTocfravaw 10 Xoyov Seirac to 8e tt&giv, 
1030 ols 11 €K 8tacf)opag Kal dvopLoiorrjTos eyyeyove koi- 
vojvia res 77/009 d'AArjAa Kal ovpi^ajvia, Tavrrjs 
alriav etvac pLerpLorr]ra Kal rd^tv, dpidpiov Kal 

1 Xylander ; kolt dra^lav -E, B, e, u ; kolt d£tav (d£tav 
corrected to dratjtav in margin -f 1 , m 1 ) -f, m, r, Escor. 72, 

2 Wyttenbach ; Kov<f>6rara -mss. 

3 <f>oiol -f, m, r. 

4 Emperius (Op. Philol., p. 340) ; eloi (elolv -e, u) -mss. 

5 TTirvac -E, B, U 1 . 

6 ola -B. 

7 6ad (?) -e ; octci -u, Aldine. 

8 to -E, B ; rw -all other mss., Aldine. 

9 imoiKtvai -e, u 2 , Escor. 72. 

10 E, B, f, m ; diro^aaiv -e, u, r, Escor. 72, Aldine. 

11 Xylander ; rtaoi dcols -mss. 

a Of. De Genio Socratis 592 b-c. 


renders her concordant and docile," all her other 
parts always agreeing with the part that is best and 
most divine. 6 For the artificer, having taken over c 
a jangling disorder in the motions of the discordant 
and stupid soul which was at odds with herself, d 
distinguished and separated some parts and brought 
others together with one another and organized 
them, using concords and numbers e by which when 
blended and fitted together even the most senseless 
bodies, stones and logs and the bark of plants and 
bones and beestings of animals, provide statuary of 
wonderful appearance and medicines and instru- 
ments of wonderful potency. Wherefore it was that 
Zeno of Citium f summoned the lads to a performance 
of pipers to observe what a sound is produced by bits 
of horn and wood and reed and bone when they par- 
take of ratio and consonance. For, while it requires 
reasoned argument to maintain with the Pythagorean 
assertion that all things are like unto number,^ the 
fact that for all things in which out of difference and 
dissimilitude there has come to be some union and 
consonance with one another the cause is regularity 
and order consequent upon their participation in 

b Cf. Plato, Republic 442 c 10-d 1 and 432 a 6-9. 

c See note /on 1014 c supra. 

d See supra 1014 b (page 183, note c) and 1016 c with note/ 
and the references there. 

e See supra page 175 note c and 1015 E with note t. 

f Cf. De Virtute Morali 443 a = S.V.F. i, frag. 299. 

9 Cf. Sextus, Adv. Math, iv, 2 and vii, 94 and 109; 
Theon Smyrnaeus, p. 99, 16 (Hiller) ; Themistius, De Ani- 
wia, p. 11, 27 (Xenocrates, frag. 39 [Heinze]); A. Nauck, 
Iamblichi De Vita Pythagorica Liber, pp. 234-235, to 
which add Anatolius in [Hero Alexandrinus], Def. 138, 9 
(iv, p. 166, 16-18 [HeibergD ; Burkert, Weisheit und Wis- 
senschaft, pp. 64-65. 



(1030) ap/jLovtas fieraaxovaiv, ovSe rovs Troirjras XeXrjdev 
apdpaa fxev rd <f)iXa /cat 7rpoarivf] KaXovvras dvap- 
oiovs 1 8e rovs ixOpovs /cat rovs TroXtpLiovs ? cos 
avapfiooriav rrjv 8ia(f)Opdv ovaav. 6 8e rep Tlw- 
Sdpcp rroirjoas to imKiySeiov 
apjJLtvos tjv i;€ivoiaiv dvrjp o8e koX <f>iXos dorols 

evapjjLoariav 8t)X6s eon rrjv dperfjv* r)yovp,evos , cos 
7tov /cat clvtos 6 Htv8apos rod deov <f>r)oiv eira- 
Kovacu* (jlovoikolv opOdv 5 imSeiKWfievov 6 rdv KaS- 
pLov. ol re TT&Aai OeoXoyot, TTpea^vraroi (/)iXoo6<f>cov 
B ovres, opy ava pbovcriKa Oecov ivexetpc^ov dydXjxa- 
oiv, ovx cos Xvpav rrov (/cpouovat) 7 /cat avXovaiv 
dAA' 8 ov8ev epyov olofxevoi Oecov olov apjioviav 


1 Xylander ; dvapdovs -E, e, u, Escor. 72 : ivaptlcvs -B ; 
dvdpdfiia -f, m ; dvdpy.idpi.ia -V, 

2 to. e^dpa KaL T( * ^oXdpLia -f, in, r. 

3 dpfiovtav -r. 

4 B. M tiller (1873); iiraKovovros -MSS. ; i-rraKovovra J. G. 
Schneider ; tiraKovtiv -Wyttenbach. 

5 Hovoikclv opddv -Heyne (Pindari Carmlna iii, pars i 
[Gottingen, 1798], pp. 51-52) ; oovKavopeav -E ; ovxavopeav 
(ovk dvopiav -u, f, m, r) -all other MSS. 

6 Heyne (loc. clt.) ; emSeiKvu/xcvoi -E, B, e, u, Escor. 72 ; 
emSeiKvvfievos -f» m, i\ Aldine. 

7 <Kpovovat> -supplied by Maurommates ; -rrov . . . vac. 7 
. . . icat -E, B; ttov koX (without lacuna) -all other mss., 
Aldine ; XvpL^ovaiv seal -Wyttenbach. 

8 avXov atv . . . vac. 2 -f, m ; vac. 4 -r . . . dAAa -f, m, r ; 
avXdv dXXd -Aldine. 

• C/. Stobaeus, Eel i, Prooem., 2 (p. 16, 1-13 [Wachs- 
muth]) and Syrianus, Metaph., pp. 103, 29-104, 2. 

& Anth. Pal. vii, 35 ; c/. A. S. F. Gow and D. L. Page, The 
Greek Anthology : Hellenistic Epigrams ii (Cambridge, 1965), 
p. 395. 


number and concord, this has not gone unnoticed 
even by the poets who call friendly and agreeable 
things befitting and enemies and foes unbefitting on 
the assumption that dissension is unfittingness. a He 
who composed the elegy for Pindar 

This was a man who was fitted for guests and friendly to 
townsmen b 

is clearly of the belief that virtue is fittingness, as 
Pindar too says somewhere himself that Cadmus 
hearkened to the god displaying music fit. c The 
theologians of ancient times, who were the oldest of 
philosophers , d put musical instruments into the hands 
of the statues of the gods, with the thought, I pre- 
sume, not that they <do play) the lyre and the pipe 
but that no work is so like that of gods as concord 

c Pindar, frag. 32 (Bergk, Sehroeder, Snell) = 22 (Turyn) 
= 13 (Bowra) ; cf De Pythiae Oraculis 397 a and Aelius 
Aristides, ii, p. 296, 4-5 (Jebb) = h\ p. 383 (Dindorf). The 
quotation is relevant to the present context only if Plutarch 
identified the SpO- of 6p0dv with the dpd- of dpOfitov, which 
he could the more easily do since in Aeolic and his own 
Boeotian op and po often correspond to the ap and pa of 
common Greek (cf R. Meister, Die griechischen Dialekte 
. . . i [Gottingen, 18821, p. 34, n. 2 ; pp. 48-49 ; p. 216 and 
F. Bechtel, Die griechischen Dialekte i [Berlin, 1921], p. 25 ; 
p. 147 ; pp. 242-243) ; and I have therefore translated 
opddv by " fit " (cf. English "fit" = "a strain of music," 
cognate with " fit " = " juncture "). 

d Cf. De hide 360 d, where Plato, Pythagoras, Xenocrates, 
and Chrysippus are said to have followed rots -ndXai OtoXoyois 
for their notion of Sal^oves, and 369 b, where a TrafXTrdXaios 
Sofa is said to have come down to poets and philosophers 
€K OcoXoycov Kal vopLod€Tu>v ; in De Defectu Orac. 436 d ot 
<j(f>6$pa naXaiol OcoXoyoi Kal irov^rai are contrasted to ot vecurepot 
. . . Kal Jnxjucol Trpoaayopcvofievoi* and to the former is ascribed 
a line of Orpheus, frag. B 6 (D.-K.), for which see De Comin. 
Not. 1074 e infra with note a there. 



(1030) efrcu /cat ov[A(j)U)VLav. (Loirep ovv 6 rovs imrpirovs 
koI rjixioXiovs Kal 8i7rAaalovs Aoyovs irjribv iv ra> 
tpycp rrjs Avpas Kal rfj xeAwvrj Kal rols KoAAdfiois 
yeAolos ion (Set fiev yap a/xe'Aet Kal ravra ovfx- 
fiirpcjs yeyovevai rrpos dAArjAa jJLTjKeoi Kal 7ra^6crt 
rr)v 8e dpfioviav €K€lvtjv eVt rcov <f>66yya>v deajpeiv) 
ovro)s zIkos fiiv €Gtl Kal ra acofxara ra>v aorepojv 
Kal rd Staar^/xara rcbv kvkAojv /cat rd ray?) rwv 
C 7T€pi<f)opa)v wo7T€p opyava iv rerayp,ivois (Aoyois} 1 
k\eiv i[Xfi€Tpa)9 rrpos a'AA^Aa /cat rrpos rd oAov, et 
/cat rd rrooov 7)ixas rod fiirpov 2 oiarrefevyt , ra>v 
jitcVrot Aoywv iK€iva>v oh 6 h-qyaovpyos ixp^aaro 
Kal t&v dpidpL&v epyov rjyelodai rrjv avrrjs rrjs 
i/jvxfjs ififJieAeiav 3 Kal dp/ioviav rrpos avrr]v, A vfr 
r)s 5 Kal rdv ovpavov iyyevofiivrj fxvpiojv dyadtov ip,- 
rrerrArjKe Kal rd rrepl yrjv copais Kal perafioAais 
tteVoov i%ovoais dpiara Kal /caAAtara 6 rrpos re 
yiveotv Kal oojrrjpiav rcov yiyvofievajv Sia/ce/cd- 

1 <X6yois> -added by Wyttenbach. 

2 f, m, r ; /xerptou -all other mss. 

3 imficXctav -f\ m\ r, Aldine. 

4 E, B, f, m ; avrrjv -e, u, r, Escor. 72, Aldine. 

5 E, B ; €<f>* oh -all other mss., Aldine. 

8 fAaXiora -u. 

° Cy. Cornutus, xiv and xxxii (p. 17, 11-16 and pp. 67, 
17-68, 5 [Lang]) and Sallustius, Be Bits et Mundo vi (p. 12, 
8-12 [Nock]). Other such symbolic interpretations of the 
statues of gods and their attributes are given by Plutarch 
in De hide 381 d-f, he Pythiae Oraculis 400 c and 402 a-b, 
An Seni Respublica Gerenda Sit 797 f ; cf. Porphyry, 



and consonance. Just as one is ridiculous, then, 
who looks for the sesquitertian and sesquialteran and 
duple ratios in the yoke and the shell and the pegs of 
the lyre (for, while of course these too must have 
been made proportionate to one another in length 
and thickness, yet it is in the sounds that that 
concord is to be observed), so is it reasonable to 
believe that, while the bodies of the stars and the 
intervals of the circles and the velocities of the 
revolutions are like instruments commensurate in 
fixed <( ratios) with one another and with the whole 
though the quantity of the measurement has eluded 
us, & nevertheless the product of those ratios and 
numbers used by the artificer c is the soul's own 
harmony and concord with herself, d whereby she has 
filled the heaven, into which she has come, with 
countless goods and has arrayed the terrestrial 
regions with seasons and measured changes in the 
best and fairest way for the generation and preserva- 
tion of things that come to be. 

Uepl dyaXfidTwvy frags. 3, 7, and 8 (J. Bidez, Vie de Porphyre, 
pp. 6*, 4-7*, 4; p. 9*, 10-21 ; p. 12*, 5-11 ; and p. 17*, 
10-18) and Macrobius, Sat. i, xvii, 13 and xix, 2 and 8 
with R. Pfeiffer, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld 
Institutes, XV (1952), pp. 20-32 on Callimachus, frag. 114 

6 So much and only so much, then, is conceded to those 
referred to in 1028 a-b swpra> kclltoi Tivks fiev ev rols raxcm, 

. . . TLV€S §€ fJbdXXoV €V TOLS aTTOOTrjlxaOlV €VLOL 8* €V TOLS ^Y^' 

Oeai. . . . 

c See page 341, note e and the references there. 

d See 1028 a supra : . . . ws ixaXiora St) rfj avoTaaei ttjs 









This Epitome or " Compendium," which is No. 42 in 
the Planudean corpus, is not listed in the Catalogue 
ofLamprias. It is rather an excerpt than an epitome 
or compendium in the proper sense, for it is merely a 
copy of chaps. 22-25 (1023 b — 1025 b) of the treatise 
with two short paragraphs by way of introduction. 
In these the " epitomizer M refers to the author of 
the treatise in the third person, though not by name, 
and in summarizing his doctrine ineptly ascribes to 
him a theory of evil that is vehemently rejected in the 
treatise. The excerpt itself shows in several places 
that the " epitomizer " did not clearly understand 
what he was transcribing ; and, though he made one 
intelligent substitution in his text, he also introduced 
a supplement that reveals his misunderstanding of a 
Greek verbal form. 

It is practically certain that the ms. of the treatise 
from which the excerpt was taken was not one from 
which any of the extant mss. of the treatise was 
copied, for in five cases words absent from all the 
latter are present in all mss. of the Epitome. a The 
text here printed is based upon a, A, /?, y, E, B, and 

a 1031 c (l/caara), 1031 D (ttoAiv), 1031 E (/cat), 1032 d 
(nXaviiTCDv), 1032 e (rqi/). See besides these the correct forms 
in all the mss. of the Epitome : dci/aVqros (1031 a), a/cpa to 
(1032 e), tov ravrov (1032 f). 


n, all of which have been collated from photostats. 
Their readings are fully reported in the apparatus; 
and so are those of Laurent. Conv. Soppr. 180, 
which was collated as a sample of the other mss. 
containing the Epitome (cf. Hubert-Drexler, Moralia 
vi/1, pp. xvii-xviii). For the few readings cited of 
Vat. Reg. 80 I have depended upon the Variae 
Lectiones of Cruser-Xylander and the reports of 
Hubert-Drexler and upon the latter for those of 
Marc. Append. IV, 1 and Urb. 100(t). There are 
few decisive indications in this work of the relation 
among the mss. collated ; but in several cases B and 
n are in agreement against all the others, and it is 
quite clear that the scribe of B did not copy the 
Epitome from E. a 

a See 1030 e (avakoytas Krai; dvaXoyiKas -B, n), 1031 a 
(7r€pi\afj.pdva)v ; irapaXa^dvaiv -B, n), 1031 e (vocpov 17 tf>vais ; 
voepov a><riT€p 17 <f>vois -B, n), 1032 a (ncos omitted by B, n). In 
all these cases the Aldine is in disagreement with B and n. 



1 . '0 7T€pl T7JS €V Tip Tl/ZCUW iffVXOyOVLCLS €711- 

yeypapLp,evos Xoyos oaa UXdrcuvc Kal rocs YlXaroj- 
E vckoZs TTe^cXoTc/jcrjrac aTrayyeXXec elodyec 8e Kal 
yeajpcerpcKas rcvas dvaXoycas Kal opLocorrjras* npos 
T7]i> rrjs ^VX^S* ^ ocerac y dewpcav ovvrecvovoas 
avrta Kac hrj koI [xovglkol Kal apcdfjLrjrcKa Oeojprf- 

2. Aeyec Se rrjv vXrjv 8 cafiopcf>oj9rj vac vtto tt\s 
faxVS Kai Si'Seoat \xev rtp rravrl ijjvx^v 8c8a)Oi 8e 
Kal eKaorcp £>cptp Tj\v ocoLKovaav aurd/ Kal irrj jxev 
ay€vr)Tov* elodyec ravrrjv tttj 8e yeveoec oovXevov- 
oav atoiov 8e rrjv vXrjv Kal vtto rod decov Sta rfjs 
faxys pLop(f>a)9rjvai Kal rrjv KaKcav 8e j3Aao"rn/xa 
T7Js vXrjs yeyovevac, Iva fxrj, (j>7]oc } to decoy acrcov 

F rtbv KaKtov vofjicodecr). 

3. "On oc rrepl rov UooecSwvcov ov pcaKpav rfjs 

1 rov 7T€pl -omitted by j8. 

2 avaXoytKas o/AOtdr^ras -B, n. 

3 avrco -y, Laurent. C. S. 180. 

4 a ; ayivxrqrov -all other mss., Aldine. 

a The epitomizer passes without notice from the treatise 
to its author. 

b See supra 1016 c and 1017 a-b. 

c See supra 1014 b and in the final chapter 1029 n-i: and 
1030 c, with which rf. Plat. Qaaest. 1003 a. 




1. The treatise entitled On the Generation of the Soul 
in the Timaeus reports what all the contentions of 
Plato and the Platonists have been and also intro- 
duces certain geometrical proportions and similarities 
pertaining, as he thinks , a to his theory of the soul 
and particularly musical and arithmetical specula- 

2. He asserts, moreover, that matter was shaped 
by soul and ascribes a soul to the universe but 
ascribes to each living being also the one that 
manages it ; and he represents this as being in one 
way ungenerated and in another subject to genera- 
tion b but matter as everlasting and given shape by 
the divinity through the agency of the soul c and evil 
as being in origin an excrescence of matter/ in 
order, he says, that the divinity might not be thought 
responsible for evil things. 

S. He says that Posidonius and his followers e did 

d As B. Muller observed (Hermes, iv [1870], p. 396, n. 1) 
this is the very opposite to Plutarch's contention in the 
treatise (see 1015 c-e supra). 

e =F 141 b (Edelstein-Kidd). Save for the differences in- 
dicated in the notes the rest of the Epitome is an exact copy 
of De An. Proc. in T'nnaeo 1023 n —1095 b su]>ra. 



(1030) vXtjs a7T€arr](jav tt)v ifwx'fjv 1 dAAa Sefjafxevoi rr)v 
7&v 7T€paT0)v ovolav 7T€pl tcl awpLara Aeyeodat, 
liepior^v /cat ravra ra> vorjrw pLt£avT€s dir€<f>rj- 
vavro rr\v ipvxqv tSe'av etvai tov TravTr) hiaorarov 
1031 kclt dpi0Li6v Gvvearcooav ap/jLovlav rrepiiyovTa' rd 
re yap jxaOr] fxart kol 2 tcov irpwrajv votjtcov fiera^v 
/cat tcov aloOrjTCOv rera^^at, rrjs re 4 W X^> T< £ 
vorjTco* to dt'Stov /cat ra> alcrOrjTLKcp* to Tra6rjTU<6v 
€*X°vot}S> 7Tpoar\Kov iv iiiocp ttjv ovoiav virapxtw- 
eXaOe ydp /cat toutov? 6 6eos roZs tcov ocoiiaTcov 
rrlpaaiv vorepoVy aTfeipyaoLL€vr)s r)Srj ttJs" foxys* 

XP<t>fA€VOS €7TL TTJV TTJS vXrjS 8iajJLOptf)COOlV, TO O/C^Sa- 

orov avrrjs /cat davvSerov opl^cov /cat TrepiXaLL- 
fidvcov 5 rats Ik tcov Tpiycovcov avvap {lotto fievcov 
erncpaveiais . aT07TO)T€pov Se 6 to ttjv fax 7 ) 1 * ^eav 
Troieiv r) fiev ydp deiKivrjTos r) 8* dKivrjTos, /cat r) 
pkv aLuyr)s irpos to aladrjTov r) §€ Tcp ocofiaTi ovv- 

B €lpyfJL€VT]. 7 7TpOS 5e TOVTOIS 6 OtOS TTJS pL€V ISeOLS 

cos rrapaSelypaTOS yeyove LttprjTrjg ttjs 8e fax*)* 
cooirep diroTeXeaLiaTOS SrjLiiovpyos. 6Vt S' ouS* 

1 mss. ; r-qv fpvxrjv -omitted 1023 b supra. 

2 fiaOrjTLKa -a, A (with fia superscript over ^t), Aldine. 

3 mss. ; tcov votjtwv -1023 b supra. 

4 MSS. ; tcov aladrjTcov -1023 B-c supra (E, B ; tcov alodr)- 
tikcov -all other mss.). 

5 TrapaXafjLfidvLov -B, n. 

• 8ia -Laurent. C. S. 180. 

7 ovv€ipyofM€vr} -B, n, Laurent. C. S. 180 ; ovvr\py\iivr] -Vat. 
Reg. 80. 

° The epitomizer misunderstood the second aorist dvl- 
crrrjaav (1023 b supra) and, supposing it to be transitive, added 
the object, ™ ^XV V * * na t; he thought was to be " supplied." 
The original was correctly translated by Turnebus and 
Amyot ; but Xylander misunderstood it just as the epito- 
mizer had done, and his mistake has been repeated by 



not remove the soul* far from matter but, having 
taken divisible in the case of bodies to mean the 
being of the limits and having mixed these with the 
intelligible, they declared the soul to be the idea of 
what is everyway extended, herself constituted 
according to number that embraces concord, for 
(they said) the mathematicals have been ranked 
between the primary intelligibles and the per- 
ceptibles and it is an appropriate thing for the soul 
likewise, possessing as she does everlastingness with 
the intelligible and passivity with the perceptive, 6 to 
have her being in the middle. In fact these people 
too failed to notice that only later, after the soul has 
already been produced, does god use the limits of the 
bodies for the shaping of matter by bounding and 
circumscribing its dispersiveness and incoherence 
with the surfaces made of the triangles fitted to- 
gether. What is more absurd, however, is to make 
the soul an idea, for the former is perpetually in 
motion but the latter is immobile and the latter 
cannot mix with the perceptible but the former has 
been coupled with body ; and, besides, god's relation 
to the idea is that of imitator to pattern but his 
relation to the soul is that of artificer to finished 
product. As to number, however, it has been stated 

Helmer (De An. Proc, p. 16, n. 21), Thevenaz (ISAme du 
Monde, p. 26), Merlan (Platonism to Neoplatonism, p. 35), 
and Marie Laffranque (Poseidonios d'ApamSe [Paris, 1964], 
p. 431). 

b to> vorjTa> . . . rip alcrQr)Tu<q> is a mistake whether of the 
epitomizer's own or of his original for ratv votjtwu . . . rdv 
aladrmjjv (1023 b supra, where, however, all mss. except E 
and B have alad-qriKatv). It is uncertain what the epitomizer 
thought the text as he wrote it could mean — if indeed he 
thought about it at all. 



(1031) dpi6[i6v 6 YiXaTCov ttjv ovoiav riderac rrjs fax^s 
aAAd TaTTOfiGvrjv vn dpi9fiov } irpoeLprjTai. 


pjfvre rots Trepaoi jttrjre tois dpidfAOis fMrjSev Ixyos 
IvVTrap^iv e/cetVr/s- tt\s hwdfiecos fj to alaQyyrbv rj 
i/rvxV 7T ^4 >VK€ Kpiveiv. vovv jJLev yap avrfj /cat 
votjtov 2 rj rrjs vorjrfjs fieOeijis dpxfjs ip^r€7roir]K€' 
S6£as Se /cat Trlareis /cat to <f>avTaoTtKov kqX to 

7Ta6r)TlKOV* V7TO TCOV 7T€pl TO OOJfia TtOlOTTYTOJV [o] 4 

ovk av rt? e/c /jLovdSajv ouSe ypafifjiow 5 ov8* Ittl- 

C <f>av€tcov ol7t\ws vorfoetev iyycvofievov, /cat p/rjv ov 

fjiovov at tol)v Ovtjtow {foxed yva)OTiK7]v tov at- 

odrjTov Svvapuv exovocv, dAAa /cat ttjv tov kvkXov* 

<j>7]OlV dvaKVKXoVfJL€V7]V aUT))l> TTpOS iaVTTjV , OTCLV 

ovoiav oKeSaoTTjv exovros twos 1 £<f>a7TTr}Tai Kal 
otov dfiepioTov, Ae'yrj 8 KivovpL€vr\v hid Trdorjs 9 eav- 
ttjs, otco av tl TavTov fj /cat otov av €T€pOV, 

1 mss. ; dfj.())OT€povs tovtovs -1023 d supra. 

2 mss. here and 1023 n supra ; see the note there on *at 
<to> vorjTov. 

3 iraOrjTOV -a, B, n. 

4 [o] -omitted by t (Urb. 100) and deleted by Dubner ; 
see 1023 d supra : noior-qrajv , tovt*. 

5 ov$' eV ypafjLficjv -B. 

6 tov kooiiov -Leonicus from 1023 d supra. 

7 rtva -y. 

8 Xeyrj -mss. {-q over erasure in a) ; \eyti -Aldine ; Xeyeiv 
-Dubner from 1023 e supra (where E, B, f, m, r also have 

9 oc andaTjs -Laurent. C. S. 180 1 . 



above ° that Plato regards the substance of soul not 
as number either but as being ordered by number. 

4. Besides both of these, moreover, there is 
equally b the argument that neither in limits nor in 
numbers is there any trace of that faculty with which 
the soul naturally forms judgments of what is 
perceptible. Intelligence and intelligibility have 
been produced in her by participation in the in- 
telligible principle ; but opinions and beliefs, that is 
to say what is imaginative and impressionable by the 
qualities in body, one could not conceive [. . .] as 
arising in her simply from units or from lines or 
surfaces. Now, not only do the souls of mortal 
beings have a faculty that is cognizant of the per- 
ceptible ; but he says c that the soul of the circle d 
also as she is revolving upon herself, whenever she 
touches anything that has being either dispersed or 
indivisible, is moved throughout herself and states e 
of any thing's being the same and different with 

° Thoughtlessly copied from 1023 d, for neither the pas- 
sage to which it refers (1013 c-d) nor its content has been 
mentioned in this " epitome.' * 

6 Plutarch's kolvov was made meaningless when the epito- 
mizer mistook dfi^oTcpovs rovrovs for ayL^oripois tovtols (see 
1023 D supra : "... against both of these in common . . . "). 

c Plato, Timaeus 37 a 5-b 3. 

d This is the epitomizer's mistake for M the soul of the 
universe " (1023 d supra). 

e I translate as if the correct Aeyetv stood here (see 1023 e 
supra), for with Xdyrj, which the epitomizer certainly wrote, 
it is impossible to construe the sentence at all. 

10 mss. ; 6to) r* av -1023 e supra. 

11 ti -B corr - '; rtj -all other mss., Aldine. 

12 fj kclI otov -B corr - ; t? /cal otw -all other mss. (to over 
erasure in a), Aldine. 



(1031) 7Tp6s o n re [idXiGTa koli otttj Kal 6ttu)$ avfi^atvet 
Kal 1 to. yiyvd[ieva 77/309 e/caorov e/cacrra elvai Kal 
TTCLoyeiv. ev tovtois afxa Kal ra>v Se/ca Karrjyo- 
pitov rroiovjievos VTroypacfirjv en fiaXXov rols icfre^rjs 
oiaaa<j>ei. il Xoyos " yap (frrjcriv " dX r q8rjs orav jxkv 
D 7repl to alcrdrjrdv yivrjrai 2 Kal 6 rod darepov kvkXos 
6p66s 3 loav els naaav avrov rrjv ijwXW ^tay- 
yetXrj, 86£ai Kal ttiot€ls yiyvovrai fiefiaioi /cat 
dXrjdels' orav S' av ttoXlv 7repl A to XoyiOTiKOV fj 
Kal 6 tov TavTov kvkXos evTpoxps cov aura fx'qvvar^, 
iTTLGT'^iJL'r} e£ avdyKrjs aTTOTeXelTai' tovtco 8' ev a> 
T(hv bvTiov eyyiyveadov , edv rroTe tcs avro aAAo 
rrXrjV ifrvxyv TrpoaecTTfj, nav fi&XXov fj to aXrjdes 
ipei." TToOev ovv k'cr)(€v b rj faxi r V v dvTiX^TTTiK'qv 
tov alodrjTov Kal 8o£aoTiKrjv TavTTjv Ktvqaiv, ere- 
pav TTJs vorjTrjs* eKewrjs Kal TeXevTOjorjs els em- 
OTrnirjVy epyov shrew firj defievovs fiefiaiujs otl vvv 
OVX olttXcds ifjvxrjv dXXd koojjlov ^VXV U wvlaTrjow 

1 Kal -mss. ; Kara. -B corr - in margin ; see 1023 e supra : 
Kara ra yiyvofieva ( Karaytvofxeva -MSS.). 

2 yivotTo -t (Urb. 100), Laurent. 80, 5 ; ylyvr\rai -1023 1: 

3 6p0a>s -a 1 ? (6s over erasure), Vat. Reg. 80 ; see r corr - 
in 1023 e supra. 

4 mss., Aldine; 8' av nepl (without rrdXiv) -1023 f supra 
and Timaeus 37 c 1. 

5 €(jx€v -omitted by Laurent. C. S. 180, Marc. Append. 
IV, 1 (cf. Hubert-Drexler, MoraMa vi/1, p. xvin). 

G mss., Aldine ; vorjTiKijs -Wyttenbach from 1023 f supra. 

a From this point on the construction of the original is 
radically altered by the erroneous K al ra yiyvo\i€.va which 



regard to whatever it is so precisely the respect and 
context and manner in which a even the things that 
come to be happen to be or to have as attribute 
either of these in relation to each. As in these 
words he is simultaneously giving an outline of the 
ten categories too, in those that follow he states the 
case more clearly still, for he says b : "Whenever 
true discourse is concerning itself about the per- 
ceptible and the circle of difference running aright 
conveys the message through all its soul, there arise 
opinions and beliefs steadfast and true ; but, when- 
ever on the other hand again it is concerned about 
the rational and the circle of sameness running 
smoothly gives the information, knowledge is of 
necessity produced ; and, if anyone ever calls by 
another name than soul that one of existing things in 
which these two come to be, he will be speaking 
anything but the truth." Whence, then, did the 
soul get this motion that can apprehend what is 
perceptible and form opinions of it, a motion different 
from that which is intelligible c and issues in know- 
ledge ? It is difficult to say without steadfastly 
maintaining that in the present passage d he is con- 
structing not soul in the absolute sense but the soul 

the epitomizer wrote instead of Kara ra yiyvoficva (see 
1023 e supra). On the other hand, the ms. that he excerpted 
must have contained the correct €Kaara (cf. Timaeus 37 b 2) 
that is lacking in all our mss. of the treatise. 

b Timaeus 37 b 3-c 5. 

c The treatise here has "intellective" (1023 r supra: 
voTjTiKrjs), but the epitomizer probably wrote vo^Tifc. 

d This refers to neither of the two passages just mentioned 
but to Timaeus 35 a 1-b 4, which is quoted at the beginning 
of the treatise (1012 b-c supra) but has not been mentioned 
in the Epitome at all. 



Tjj €^ VTTOKZllXtVriS 1 T7JS T€ KptLTTOVOS OVGldS Kdl dpb€- 
ptQTOV Kdl 77JS X€tpOVOS t 7]V 7T€pl 2 TO. GCOpLdTd 
fl€pi(JT7)V K€kAt)K€P, Ol>X €T€pCLV OVGGV 7/ T^V 8o£d- 

otiktjv /cat <j>avraariKrjv koX GvpiTrdOr}* rcov aladrj- 
rcov 4 Kivrjow, ov y€vo\iivr\v dAAd v<f>€GTu>oav dl8iov 
tboirep rj €7€pa. to yap voepov rj <f>vois 3 e^ovaa 

Kdl TO 8o£gOTIk6v ef^6V dAA' €K€LVO pb€V dKLVTjTOV 
Kdl dTTddks Kdl 7T€pl TTjV del [MZVOVGdV l8pvp,€VOV 

ovaldv tovto 8k jjLeptGTOv Kdl irXdvrjTov, arc S17 
<f>€pop,evr}s Kdl aKeSdvvujxevrjs i^dTTTOfievov vXrjs. 
ovt€ yap to dladrjTov eiA^et Td^ecos dAA* rjv dp,op- 

<f>OV Kdl dOpiOTOV, T\ T€ 7T€pl TOVTO T€TdyfJL€V7] 8lJVd- 
P [IIS OVT€ S6£dS ZvdpdpOVS OUT€ KLV)]G€C$ dTTdGdS 

e^ofaa 6 T€Tdy/j,€Vd$ dAAa tcls ttoAAcls €vvttvi(1)8€is 

Kdl 7Tdpd<f)6pOVS Kdl TdpdTTOVG dS TO GU)JJLdTO€l8eS , 

odd [xrj KdTd Tvyrpt tw jSeArtovt TrepUmTTTev iv 

p,4oa> ydp rjv dpL<f>olv Kdl Trpos d/x^OT€pa Gvpurddrj 

1032 Kdl Gvyyevrj </>vgiv €?X 6 > T <P pkv dlGdr)TiKcp ttjs 

vArjS d.VT€XO/JL€V7] Tip 8k KplTlKU) TU)V VOrjTWV. 

5. Ovtco 8e 7ru)S % Kal HAaTOjv* 8taGa<f>ei toIs 
ovopidow " ovtos " ydp <l>r}OL u rrapd tt}s ip<fjs ifrrj- 

1 mss., Aldine ; viroKtifievajv -1024- A supra. 

2 Trapa -E. 3 ovfJL7rXoKrj -Vat. Reg. SO. 

4 mss., Aldine ; rco alcrdrjTU) -1024 a supra. 

5 VO€pOV a><J1T€p T) <f>VGLS "B, n. 

6 mss., Aldine ; ct^ -Wyttenbach from 1024 u supra (13, 
E [in margin]). 

7 alaOrjrco -B. 

8 ttcos -omitted by B. 

9 mss. ; airros -1024 b supra. 

a Misled by rijs . . . ovolols, which follows immediately, 
the epitomizer may have misread an abbreviation of the final 
syllable of v-noKeifievcov in the original (1024 a supra). Both 
entities, of course, were already available to the artificer. 



of the universe out of being that is already available/* 
the superior, that is to say indivisible, and the 
inferior, which he has called divisible in the case of 
bodies, this latter being none other than the opinion- 
ative and imaginative motion sensitive of the per- 
ceptibles, 6 not brought into being but having sub- 
sisted everlastingly just like the former. For nature 
possessing intellectuality possessed the opinionative 
faculty also, the former, however, immobile and 
impassive and settled about the being that always 
remains fixed but the latter divisible and erratic 
inasmuch as it was in contact with matter which was 
in motion and dispersion. The fact is that the per- 
ceptible had not got any portion of order but was 
amorphous and indefinite ; and the faculty stationed 
about this was one having c neither articulate opinions 
nor motions that were all orderly, but most of them 
were dreamlike and deranged and were disturbing 
corporeality save in so far as it would by chance en- 
counter that which is the better, for it was inter- 
mediate between the two and had a nature sensitive 
and akin to both, with its perceptivity laying hold on 
matter and with its discernment on the intelligibles. 
5. In terms that go something like this Plato d too 
states the case clearly, for he says e : " Let this be 

* This is the epitomizer's error for " sensitive to what is 
perceptible " in the original. 

c I attempt in this way to render Ixouaa, a mistake for 
elx€ that was probably in the epitomizer's original, for it is 
common to all the mss. here and most of those of the treatise 
(see 1024 b supra). 

d Here the epitomizer not unintelligently substituted the 
name of Plato for " he . . . himself " of his original. 

• Timaeus 52 d 2-4. 



(1032) <f)ov Aoyiodels iv K€(f>aAaio) 8e86adoj Xoyos, ov re 1 
/cat ywpov /cat yivtow etvai rpia rpcxfj /cat irplv 
ovpavov yeveoOai." /cat 2 x^P av T€ 7^9 *aAa rrjv 
vArjv ojcmep eSpav eariv ore /cat v7ro8o)(rjv , 3 ov 8e to 
votjtov, yiveoiv 8e rod koojjlov prtynui yeyovoros 
ovSefiiav aAAr^v 7} rrjv iv fierafioAals /cat Kivrjoeow 
ovalav, rov tvttovvtos /cat rod TurrovfJievov fxera^v 
T€Tayfx4vrjv, StaStSouaav 4 ivravOa rag eKeldev el- 
kovcls* Sta re 8rj ravra fiepLarrj tt poorly opevdrj /cat 
B ort rep ala6rjTa> to alodavofievov /cat ra> (fyavraorco 
to (^avTa^oixevov avay/crj avv8 cave fA€od at /cat ovfi- 
7raprjK€t>v' r) yap alodrjTtKrj 5 klvtjols, tSta ifjvxfjs 

OVUa, KW€LTCLl TTpOS TO alodrjTOV €KTOS' 6 Sc vovs 

ai>Tos p,€v i<f>' iavTov* pLovifAOs ffv /cat aKtvrjTos, 
iyyev6/JL€vos 8e tjj tpvxfj Kat KpaTTjoas els iavrov 
€TTiOTp€<f)€i feat ovpLTiepaivei TTjv iyKVKAiov <f>opdv 
rrepl to /zev^ov) 7 del ju-aAiora 8 ifjavovoav tov ovtos, 
8 to /cat 8voavaKpaTOS rj Kotvcovla yiyovev ojvtGw, 
tcjv apiepioTOJV 9 to fxepioTov /cat tcov fjL7j8afifj kivt}- 

1 ov t€ -E 1 in margin, Basiliensis ; ovtos -all other mss. 
(two dots under to? -B), Aldine. 

a koX -mss., Aldine ; omitted by Basiliensis and lacking in 
1024 c supra. 

3 virobox^lv -y. 

4 htahovoav -y (so also r in 1024 c supra), 

5 aladrjrrj -B. 

8 afi €clvtoC -Laurent. C. S. 180, Marc. Append. IV, 1 (cf. 
Hubert-Drexler, Moralia vi/1, p. xvm [so also f, m, r, Escor. 
72 in 1024 c supra]), 



the account rendered in summation as reckoned 
from my calculation, that real existence and space 
and becoming were three and distinct even before 
heaven came to be." Now, it is matter that he also 
calls space, as he sometimes calls it abode and 
receptacle, and the intelligible that he calls real 
existence ; and what he calls becoming, the universe 
not yet having come to be, is nothing other than that 
being involved in changes and motions which, ranged 
between what makes impressions and what receives 
them, disperses in this world the semblances from 
that world yonder. For this very reason it was called 
divisible and also because it is necessary for that 
which is perceiving and that which is forming mental 
images to be divided in correspondence with what is 
perceptible and with what is imaginable and to be 
coextensive with them, for the motion of sense-per- 
ception, which is the soul's own, moves towards what 
is perceptible without but the intelligence, while it 
was abiding and immobile all by itself, upon having 
got into the soul and taken control makes her turn 
around to him and with her accomplishes about that 
which always remains fixed a the circular motion most 
closely in contact with real existence. This is also 
why the union of them proved to be a difficult fusion, 
mixing the divisibility of the indivisibles and the 

° It is probable that the epitomizer faithfully copied to 
fxkv act from his original ; but, if so, he could not have 
construed the phrase at all. 

7 Wyttenbach from 1024 d supra ; to ^ikv -mss. (so u in 
1024 d supra, where f omits pivov altogether). 

8 fjAXiara -omitted by B. 

9 mss. ; tw afieptoTO) -Stephanus from 1024 d supra. 



(1032) rcov 1 ro rravrrj <j>opr]r6v puyvvovaa Kal /carajSia- 
t>op,evrf ddrepov els ravrov z avveXdelv. rjv 8e ro 
C ddrepov ov Kcvrjacs, coa7rep ov8e ravrov Gravis, 
dXX dp^r] §t>Q<j>op5.s koX dvopLoiorrjros . eKarepov 
ydp duo rrjs erepas dpxrjs Kareiai, ro fiev ravrov 
aVo rod evos ro 8e ddrepov drro rrjs SvdSos' Kal 
fidfiiKrai rrpcorov ivravOa irepl ty}v *I*VXV V > Q-P l ®~ 
jjlols Kal Xoyois aw8edevra Kal fieaorrjoiv ivappio- 
VLOiSy Kal TTOtel ddrepov fxev iyyevopuevov rco ravrco* 
8ia<f>opdv to 8e ravrov iv to* erepco rd£iv, cos 8rjX6v 
iartv iv rats rrpcorais rrjs faxi^ Swdfieow elal 
8e avrac ro KpiriKov Kal ro KivrjriKov. rj p,ev ovv 
Kivrjois evOvs imhtiKwrai irepl rov ovpavov iv fiev 
rfj ravrorrjri rrjv ereporrjra rfj 7Tepi<f>opa rcov d- 
D rrXavcov iv 8e rfj ereporryri rr)v ravrorrjra rfj rd^ei 
rcov TrXavrjTiov* '• irriKparel ydp iv eKeivois ro rav- 
rov iv 8e rots rrepl yrjv rovvavriov. r) 8e Kpiois 
dpxds p.ev e^ei 8vo, rov re vovv drro rov ravrov 
npos ra KaOoXov Kal rr)v aladrjoiv drro rov erepov 
rrpos ra Kad' eKaara. /xe/xt/crat 8e Xoyos i£ dfx- 
<f>olv, vorjais iv rols vorjrois Kal 86£a yivop,evos iv 
rots alad'qrois dpydvois re pLeratjv (f>avraolais re 
Kal lAvrjiiais x/odi/Aevos 'y dov ra fiev iv rco ravrco* 
ro erepov rd 8' iv rco ere pep rroiel ro ravrov. eon 
ydp r) piev vorjais Kivrjais rod kivovvtos 7 7repl ro 

1 mss. (to . . . KivqTov -t [Urb. 100], Laurent. 80, 5) ; rw 
fiYjhafifj Kivqrw -Stephanus from 1024 d supra (where r has 
KivrjTov). 2 KaTa^ta^ofiivov -a (?). 

8 ravro -B, Laurent. C. S. 180. 

4 E ; t<£ avrw -all other mss. 

6 TrXavutv (with tJt superscript over voj) -a 1 ; TrXavrjrcjjv -all 
other mss. 

6 E 1 superscript over avroj ; avro -Vat. Reg. 80 ; avTto 
-all other mss. 



thorough transience of the utterly immobile* and 
constraining difference to unite with sameness. 
Difference is not motion, however, as sameness is not 
rest either, but the principle of differentiation and 
dissimilitude. In fact, each of the two derives from 
another of two principles, sameness from the one and 
difference from the dyad ; and it is first here in the 
soul that they have been commingled, bound to- 
gether by numbers and ratios and harmonious means, 
and that difference come to be in sameness produces 
differentiation but sameness in difference order, as is 
clear in the case of the soul's primary faculties. 
These are the faculties of discernment and motivity. 
Now, directly in the heaven motion exhibits diversity 
in identity by the revolution of the fixed stars and 
identity in diversity by the order of the planets, for 
in the former sameness predominates but its opposite 
in the things about the earth. Discernment, how- 
ever, has two principles, intelligence proceeding 
from sameness to universals and sense-perception 
from difference to particulars ; and reason is a blend 
of both, becoming intellection in the case of the 
intelligibles and opinion in the case of the per- 
ceptibles and employing between them mental 
images and memories as instruments, of which the 
former are produced by difference in sameness and 
the latter by sameness in difference. For intellection 
is motion of the mover b about what remains fixed, 

° The nonsense of this clause is the result of the epito- 
mizer's reading as genitive plurals the dative singulars of 
1024 d supra, a mistake that he made in 1031 e supra also. 

b This is the epitomizer's own mistake for " motion of 
what is cognizing " (1024 f supra), 

7 klvowtos -mss. ; voovvros -Leonicus from 1024 f supra. 



(1032) \xivov y 7/ 8k 86£a /lovr] tov alodavofievov ire pi to 

Kivovfxevov (f>avraoiav 8k ovfJL7rXoKr)v 86£r)s npos 

E aiodrjaw ovaav torrjacv ev l^vq/JLTj to tovtov to 8k 

ddTtpov Kivel ttclXlv iv 8ia<f>opa tov irpoadev koli 


6. Aet 8k TTjv 7T€pl to ou)jxa tov koojjlov yevo- 
tievrjv. avvTa^iv 1 et/coVa AafieZv tt\s dvaXoylas iv fj 
8irjppL6oaTO Trjv 2 \\royr\v. €/cet \ikv yap fjv d/cpa to 
irvp /cat rj yrj, x a ^ €7T V v ^P^S dXXrjXa Kpadrjvai 
<f>vow €)(0VTa fidXXov 8k oXcos aKpaTOV /cat dov- 
otcltov o6ev iv jxiacp difievos avTcov tov fjLev dipa 

7Tp6 TOV TTVpOS TO 8k v8u)p 7T/)0 TTfS yfjS , TdVTO. 

7TpcoTOV dXXrfXois iKepaoev €?ra Std tovtojv €/cetva 
rrpos T€ raura /cat dXXrjXa* ovvifjiitje /cat ovvrjpiJLo- 
F aev. evTdvda 8k 7t<xXlv to tolvtov /cat to daTepov, 
evavrtas Swdfieis /cat d/cpdr^ras olvtittolXovs, ovv- 
rfyaycv ov Std avTwv, 4 dAA' ovoias €T€pas fjL€Ta£v, 

OaTepOV TTJV JJL€piOTTjV y eOTIV fj 7Tp007jKOVOaV €/Ca- 

Tepav €KaT€pa ra^as etVa /xt^^etaats" e/cetvats* €77- 
€yK€pawv[JL€vos, ovtujs to ttcLv ovvv<f>rjV€. Trjs ifwx?js 
et8os, (hs rjv dwoTov, e/c 8ia(f)6pwv ojaolov e/c t€ 
noXXcov IV d7T€pyaodjjL€vo9 . 8 

1 mss. ; avvr-qgiv -Bernardakis from 1025 a supra. 

2 rr]v -mss. ; omitted in 1025 a supra. 

3 mss. ; Kal 7rpo£ dXXrjXa -1025 a-b supra. 

4 avrcbv -a, Laurent. C. S. 180, Aldine. 

5 npos -Vat. Reg. 80. 

6 npos -Vat. Reg. 80. 

7 Iv -n ; iva -Laurent. C. S. 180 ; omitted by Aldine. 
8 mss. ; dTreipyaafjievos -1025 b supra (aTT€ipyaodp,€vos -f). 

a The erroneous i^anTOfievov (in 1025 a supra emended 
to i(f>aTTTOfi€vrjv) 9 which without doubt was in the ms. ex- 
cerpted by the epitomizer as it is in all the extant mss. of the 



and opinion fixity of what is perceiving about what 
is in motion ; but mental imagining, which is a 
combination of opinion with sense-perception, is 
brought to a stop in memory by sameness and by 
difference again set moving in the distinction of past 
and present, being in contact with a diversity and 
identity at once. 

6. The construction 6 that was carried out in the 
case of the body of the universe must be taken as a 
likeness of the proportion with which he regulated 
the soul. In the former case, because there were 
extremes, fire and earth, of a nature difficult to 
blend together or rather utterly immiscible and 
incohesive, he accordingly put between them air in 
front of the fire and water in front of the earth and 
blended these with each other first and then by 
means of these commingled and conjoined those 
extremes with them and each other. And in the 
latter case again he united sameness and difference, 
contrary forces and antagonistic extremes, not just 
by themselves ; but by first interposing other beings, 
the indivisible in front of sameness and in front of 
difference the divisible, as each of the one pair is in 
a way akin to one of the other, and by then making 
an additional blend with those between after they 
had been commingled he thus fabricated the whole 
structure of the soul, from what were various making 
it as nearly uniform and from what were many as 
nearly single as was feasible. 

treatise, could agree only with to Bdrepov (" difference ") and 
taken with this produces nonsense. 

b This mistake for " fusion " (own/fiv), which occurs in 
one ms. of the treatise also, may have been in the ms. ex- 
cerpted by the epitomizer. 


The Loeb Classical Library is the only existing 
series of books which, through original text 
and English translation, gives access to all that 
is important in Greek and Latin literature. A 
list of titles is available from Harvard Univer- 
sity Press and at 

LOEB CLASSICAL LIBRARY' is a registered trademark of the 
President and Fellows of Harvard College. 

Authors of related interest in the 
Loeb Classical Library 



T l 7aab7H n Tm7Db